OK -- Now What?

There's an interesting debate going on right now with regard to what Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut primary really means. I think Josh Marshall's Time.Com piece lays it out pretty well:

Many pundits claim that Lieberman's defeat is a replay of the way Democrats tore themselves apart over Vietnam. It's an appealing thought for Republicans. And it has got nice drama. But those pundits are either being disingenuous or are caught in a time warp. Democrats are actually fairly united on the Iraq War in their opposition to it — which is actually where most Americans are right now. And though many Senators are not as full-throated in their opposition as the base of the party, you don't see any successful challenges being made against other Senators who aren't ready to bring the troops home.

With Lieberman, there's something different. It's not just that he wouldn't wash his hands of the Iraq War. Lots of Democrats won't. It's more than that. He's seemed almost militantly indifferent to the disaster Iraq has become. And his passion about the war seemed reserved exclusively for those who questioned it rather than those who had so clearly botched the enterprise. His continual embrace of President Bush — both literal and figurative — was an insult to Democrats, the great majority of whom believe Bush has governed as one of the most destructive Presidents in modern American history. It's almost as though Lieberman has gone out of his way to provoke and offend Democrats on every point possible, often, seemingly, purely for the reason of provoking. Is it any wonder the guy got whacked in a party primary?

Interestingly, TIME also posted this piece -- I guess in order to be fair and balanced -- which discusses why the Republicans are actually loving the fact that Lieberman lost (thanks for the link, Saturday Night Dan).

Nice try, GOP, but you guys are in big trouble and you know it. The Republicans are scared shitless when it comes to Iraq, and if you don't believe me, then maybe this will convince you (from the most recent issue of Washington Monthly):

Amid the highly charged political infighting in Washington over what to do in Iraq, you might be excused for not noticing that a bipartisan commission quietly started work last spring with a mandate to help the Bush administration rethink its policy toward the war. Of course, anything labeled "bipartisan commission" seems almost guaranteed to be ignored by a highly partisan White House that is notoriously hostile to outside advice and famously devoted to "staying the course."

But what makes this particular commission hard to dismiss is that it is led by perhaps the one man who might be able to break through the tight phalanx of senior officials who advise the president and filter his information. That person is the former secretary of state, Republican insider, and consigliere of the Bush family, James A. Baker III.

Since March, Baker, backed by a team of experienced national-security hands, has been busily at work trying to devise a fresh set of policies to help the president chart a new course in--or, perhaps, to get the hell out of--Iraq. But as with all things involving James Baker, there's a deeper political agenda at work as well. "Baker is primarily motivated by his desire to avoid a war at home -- that things will fall apart not on the battlefield but at home. So he wants a ceasefire in American politics," a member of one of the commission's working groups told me.

Specifically, he said, if the Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress in November, they would unleash a series of investigative hearings on Iraq, the war on terrorism, and civil liberties that could fatally weaken the administration and remove the last props of political support for the war, setting the stage for a potential Republican electoral disaster in 2008. "I guess there are people in the [Republican] party, on the Hill and in the White House, who see a political train wreck coming, and they've called in Baker to try to reroute the train."

Definitely read the entire article. It's a good one. I loved the part near the end which quoted one of the working group's participants as saying that "[t]he object of our policy has to be to get our little white asses out of [Iraq] as soon as possible," and that in order to do that, Baker must confront the president "like the way a family confronts an alcoholic. You bring everyone in, and you say, 'Look, my friend, it's time to change.'"

As noted above, some pundits are claiming that "Lieberman's defeat is a replay of the way Democrats tore themselves apart over Vietnam." Actually, it looks like it is the Republicans who are -- or soon will be -- tearing themselves apart. Indeed, just last Sunday, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel -- whom I really doubt is a leftist terrorist-loving, America-hating security weakling -- broke ranks with the bulk of his party, called the Iraq Debacle a "hopeless, winless situation," and in essence called for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

How should the Democrats respond to all of this? Well, Wes Clark has the answer. I really liked what Clark had to say yesterday with regard to Lieberman specifically and Democratic strategy on Iraq generally. In fact, Clark has come up with a great national security theme for the Democrats to use in the run-up to the Mid-Terms:

You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party.

Perfect.