These developments stem directly from the 2006 Connecticut Senatorial race between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman.  Hopefully,
how the current situation evolved will be fully digested and evaluated by  anti-Iraq War voters  well before the first 2008 Democratic primaries.

Summing Up The Current Situation

Lieberman's appointment  and continuance in his  key post  is an insult to Democrats, in and out of  Washington.

As for the  gain anticipated on the basis of becoming the majority party in the Senate, i.e.,  controlling  the Senate committees -- the Senate Democrats have proved as ineffectual in passing meaningful legislation  as the Republicans.  

Since the New York Times endorsed Ned Lamont in the Connecticut primary -- and even more strongly in the November general election --  it stands to reason that the paper's executives, staff and readers were disappointed in what appeared to be a  devastating  defeat for the anti-Iraq War movement. Today's knowledge of  what actually lay behind that `defeat' casts an entirely new light on its significance.

The day after the November 2006 general election, the Times published an analytical report on the Connecticut race, headlined, "Lamont Didn't Carry Message Beyond Opposition to the War," Sub-head: "Defeat for a candidate who strayed from his defining issue." Unfortunately, these lead-in words indicate that the writer did not have access to the all-important breakdown of the respected and unchallenged exit polls.

Again, please  bear in mind that the Times had endorsed Ned Lamont in the primary and -- even more strongly --  in the November  general election. Here are four sentences that the Times' writer evidently believed synthesized  the results of the (final) general election:

"But in one of the odder twists of this midterm election, Mr. Lamont -- who during his primary battle against  Mr. Lieberman came to personify the anti-Iraq vote -- met a different fate. He not only lost, but he lost in a Democratic state where opposition to the war ran deep. And he was defeated by one of the war's  most prominent defenders, Mr. Lieberman, who ran as an Independent."

The inference to be drawn from these words is that somehow Lamont and his anti-Iraq War supporters, for one reason or another, did not perform as well as the anti-war Democrats in other states. Nothing could be further from  reality:

Lamont got twice as many votes from Democrats, 65%, to Lieberman's 33%.
70% of Lieberman's votes came from Republicans.

National Election Pool*

Democratic Vote: Lieberman 33%  Lamont 65%     Schlesinger  2%
Republican Vote: Lieberman 70%  Lamont  8%     Schlesinger 21%
Independent Vote:Lieberman 54%  Lamont 35%     Schlesinger 10%

*A consortium of ABC News CBS News CNN FOX News NBC News AP; cosponsored by Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International.

On the Sunday morning following the Election (November 12, 2006), Tim Russert and Joe Lieberman discussed the numbers posted above.

From the 11/12/07 Meet The Press Transcript:

"MR.RUSSERT: If you look at the exit polls for Connecticut in your race, it's quite interesting. Here they are; Republicans--70% of Republicans voted for Lieberman; 8% for Democrat Ned Lamont and 21% for the Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger. Democrats; you got 33%. Lamont got 65% -- two out of three Democrats voted against Joe Lieberman."

"SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. . . . . ."

"SEN. LIEBERMAN: If you look at the vote, and this is another reason why, why I'm an Indepen-- why I say I'm an Independent Democrat, a majority of my votes came from independent and Republican voters in Connecticut. But of course I couldn't have won without that Democratic support, either, and I--I'm glad we held a third of it."

Question : Have we missed something here?  Can you define yourself as an `Independent Democrat' because the majority of your votes came from `independent and Republican voters in Connecticut??'

Question : Have the  Clintons, whatever their motivations, gone off the deep end??

Seniority notwithstanding -- Joe Lieberman should never have been given the authority and accompanying bully pulpit of the Chairmanship of Homeland Security and Governmental Matters.

This appointment cannot be rationalized, let alone justified. But it  can -- and should  -- be explained. Going back to the spring of 2006, Hillary and Bill Clinton  announced their  support of Joe Lieberman almost immediately after he had announced his candidacy.

Their enthusiastic support so aroused the anti-Iraq War supporters of Lamont that they brought  pressure on Hillary Clinton to pledge that -- despite her long- term relationship with Lieberman -- she would honor the tradition of the Democratic party, i.e., support `the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary.'

In response to this pressure, on July 4, 2006 Hillary Clinton issued the following statement:

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than 30 years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for reelection and hope that he is our party's nominee. But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary. I believe in the Democratic Party , and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."

In the month remaining before the August 8 Connecticut primary, the Clintons continued to strongly support Lieberman right up to the primary. Particularly effective was Bill Clinton's very warm,  personalized endorsement at the widely publicized Waterbury fundraiser.

Even though Republicans are prohibited from voting in a Democratic primary, there were no restrictions against their contributing financially to the Lieberman campaign. No figures were available at the time, but it was recognized that Lieberman was receiving a significant number of contributions from Republicans.                              

Specifically, in January 2007,the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP)  --  a highly respected, non-partisan, non-profit group --  made a special compilation of what big  Republican donors (over $200) had contributed to Lieberman  prior to August 8, 2006 and after that date.

First things first :  CRP reported that up to August 8, big Republican donors had contributed  $857,280 to Lieberman. (It's estimated that small donors' contributions, if fiscally and pragmatically available, might have added  4%-6%.)

In retrospect, then, what Ned Lamont faced in the Connecticut primary was a three-term  Democratic incumbent -- with the all-out support of Hillary and Bill Clinton -- and backed by significant Republican funding.

Despite these factors in the primary head-to-head fight for the Democratic nomination, Lamont won with  52% of the vote to Lieberman's 48%.

Moreover, the prospect of the promised Clintons' support actually displacing  the Clintons' all-out opposition -- a Lamont victory in the November general election was a valid expectation. But when push came to shove, Lieberman beat Lamont  --  for two simple reasons: Republican money and Democratic betrayal.

(1) The January 2007 compilation showed that the Republicans doubled  their pre-primary financial backing of Lieberman. They contributed $1,571,040 in the post-primary election. At least as effective, the Republicans  put on a  get-out-the-vote campaign that was unprecedented for a candidate of an
opposing party.

(2) As for the promised Clintons' support for Lamont, taking Hillary first:

Immediately after Lamont's primary victory, Hillary Clinton sent his campaign a $5,000 check. Subsequent to that, in what was described as a private meeting,  the New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton  "offered to help Ned Lamont in his battle to unseat Senator Joseph I. Lieberman by sponsoring a fundraiser, campaigning by his side and lending him one of her top political strategists."

In the same Times' report, "Dan Gerstein, a spokesman for Mr. Lieberman, said that he was skeptical of the level of support that Mrs. Clinton was offering, calling it typical of
 the `partisan playbook.' We will be curious to see if and when Senator Clinton shows up."

Let's concede that Mrs. Clinton `showed up' and made good on the other late August offers. Be that as it may, those offers were  little more than token or tepid support. And that`s including the $5,000 check  --  which is very small potatoes in view of Mrs. Clinton's widely publicized,  multi-million dollar campaign war chest. All told,  the support was  meager when compared to what Mrs. Clinton did for Joe Lieberman leading up to the primary.

Unfortunately, Bill Clinton's non-performance on Ned Lamont's behalf -- from August 8 through  the election date -- was even more shameful.

A diligent internet search for  evidence of Bill Clinton's promised support  for  Ned Lamont turns out to  make the case that Bill Clinton's  `support' remains one of the best kept   secrets in political history. Not a trace of even a single fundraiser for Lamont from August all the way through to the November election.

On the other hand, Larry King interviewed Bill Clinton on September 20, 2006. At the end of the  interview, King asked a question:

From the 9/20/06 Larry King Transcript

KING: Are you supporting Lamont?

CLINTON:  I am but you know, my -- I don't have the same view of this as some people do. My view is it's an unmitigated blessing for the Democrats because Lieberman has said if he wins he's going to vote with us to organize the Senate.

This 'blessing' meant that -- due solely to the backing of the Clintons and the Republicans -- Lieberman  became the Chairman of the Democratic Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Matters.

In that capacity, he consistently and loudly votes with the Republicans on all bills related to the Iraq War.

On behalf of George W. Bush & Associates,  

THANK YOU, BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON