I'm currently finishing up the Tufts Summer Session...one of my classes is Candidates, Campaigns and Elections and a race that we've been talking about throughout the class is Lieberman's primary race.

I've never really been interested in ant elections but the Presidential, but this class and my age, I suppose, have opened me up to a greater sphere of politics.

I find the Connecticut Democratic Primary race between Lieberman and Lamont particularly entertaining. One of the thing's my Professor likes to exclaim is, "It is not what is real that is important but what is perceived to be real." He points out to us (and it seems backed) that Lieberman really should have the advantage as an incumbent. Traditionally Senate incumbents get re-elected. Why Lieberman is being targeted by the Dem party, potentially at the risk of sacrificing a D seat for Senate (by losing the name recognition and incumbent advantage after the primary) is because not only does he believe that the U.S. should stay in Iraq...but that the U.S. was correct to go Iraq and that there were absolutely no errors made in our foreign policy during this war. Conn Dems, however, believe that regardless of whether or not the US should stay in Iraq, that the war is not going "well" and that perhaps some mistakes should be acknowledged. Lieberman stands up for his conscience here and refuses to back down. A debate results: should Conn voters respect Lieberman for standing apart from the Dem pack, for upholding his long-held conviction as it stands, for the Iraq conflict...or should CT Dems punish him for his failure to understand what they believe happened with Iraq?

There is some wisdom which states that partisans should vote for the candidate that is most likely to beat the opposition party, which would normally be the incumbent. But in this case it appears that Dems are unwilling to re-elect a candidate that so greatly disagrees with them. Of course, at this point it doesn't help that Lieberman has said he will run as an Independent if he loses the primary against Lamont...further angering his constituency.

I have been learning that in any election wedge issues (single-issues which strike the coters notice around a particular election) distract voters from a candidate's broader view. Lieberman's record on any other issue: abortion, gay marriage (the social issues which the Dems tend to have in common) are irrelevent right now. He can not possible gain the support of his party if he does not somehow convince them that his point of view towards the conflict in Iraq is valid.

Okay, now I've gone on too long.