WP:In Conn., Lieberman Defends Seat, War Stance

[cal04]

Shunned by many in his own party because of his vigorous support for the war, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) clashed in a debate Thursday with a well-financed challenger who has roiled state politics and turned the Democratic primary into a national test of the antiwar movement.

In a hard-hitting 30-minute exchange about the war, Lieberman sought to portray his opponent, Ned Lamont, as a fringe candidate with little grasp of the military and geopolitical stakes in Iraq. Lamont assailed the incumbent for ignoring reports of rising violence and instability, and for cheering on President Bush "when he should have been asking the tough questions."

Lieberman defended the conflict as "a lot better, different" than a year ago. "They're on the way to building a free and independent Iraq," he asserted. "The question is, are we going to abandon them while they are making that progress?"

Lieberman headed into the night with vastly diminished party support after a nearly four-decade political career that included a turn as his party's 2000 vice presidential nominee. Earlier this week, he signaled that he will run as an independent this fall if he loses the Aug. 8 primary -- a possibility, according to recent polls. Lieberman's agreeing to debate Lamont on television was interpreted by some political analysts here as evidence that he is worried about the primary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/06/AR2006070601755.html

[senseandsensibility]

1. Thanks for posting

Interesting article. I didn't know much about Lamont before tonight, but I am learning fast after watching the debates!

[skipos]

2. I am not "shunning" him because of his war stance

I am shunning him because he doesn't give a crap about Democrats in CT and who they vote for in the August primary. All he cares about is self preservation, and there is no reason for any Democrat to support him.