Anti-Iraq War Candidate Ned Lamont Takes on Sen. Joe Lieberman in Nation’s Most-Watched Primary

Watch 128k stream       Watch 256k stream

Today voters go to the polls in the most-watched race of the primary season. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democratic Senator from Connecticut, is facing his first major challenge to re-election since he won his seat eighteen years ago. His challenger, Ned Lamont is a wealthy former telecommunications executive who has run largely on an anti-war platform.

Senator Lieberman was the Democratic party's vice presidential candidate in 2000, and ran for President in 2004. He has been harshly criticized for his vocal support of the Iraq war and his continued opposition to an immediate U.S. troop withdrawal. He has also been taken to task for his perceived closeness to President Bush and other Republicans.

Lamont's steady gain on Lieberman has been fueled by increasing anti-war sentiment in Connecticut. A poll last week showed Lamont beating Lieberman 54-41 percent. The latest poll shows Lamont holding a 6 point lead. Lieberman has promised to run as an independent if he loses today's primary.

Bill Curry joins us from Hartford, Connecticut. He is a former Connecticut state comptroller and state senator -- and he was the Democratic nominee for governor in 1994 and 2004. Bill was also a counselor to President Clinton from 1995 to 1997. He now writes a weekly column for the Hartford Courant.

• Bill Curry. Former Connecticut state comptroller and state senator -- and he was the Democratic nominee for governor in 1994 and 2004. Bill was also a counselor to President Clinton from 1995 to 1997. He now writes a weekly column for the Hartford Courant.

AMY GOODMAN: This is an excerpt from the Lamont-Lieberman debate that took place last month. Ned Lamont was just asked to explain the difference between him and Lieberman on the Iraq war.

NED LAMONT: Senator Lieberman, over the last three years, keeps saying, “We're turning the corner. We’re turning the corner. Things are getting better and better.” That corner is a square. We're not making progress in the war in Iraq right now. As you remember, the senator said over six months ago, “Look at all the cell phones. Look at the satellite dishes. We're on the way to progress.” In fact, in the last six months the number of sectarian deaths has increased a lot. There are deaths of Americans. It's going downhill. Tom Friedman calls it anarchy. Others have called it just an incipient civil war.

I think our very visible frontline military presence is making the situation worse. I think that our best hope for success, Tom, our best hope for success is to take the very American military face off of this occupation and start bringing our troops out of harm’s way and start bringing our troops home. We'll there be for reconstruction. We'll be there for humanitarian assistance. We’ll be there for political support. But at the end of the day, only the Iraqis can solve this. They can solve it politically, and only they can solve it militarily.

JOANNE NESTI: Senator Lieberman.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Well, Tom and Joanne, Ned has got me confused again. But I'll tell you one thing he’s wrong about. The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago. The Iraqis held three elections. They formed a unity government. They are on the way to building a free and independent Iraq. Their military -- two-thirds of their military is now ready, on their own, to lead the fight with some logistical backing from the U.S. or stand up on their own totally. That's progress. And the question is, are we going to abandon them while they are making that progress?

Let me repeat. I'm not for an open-ended commitment to Iraq. The sooner we're out of there, the better it will be for the Iraqis and for us. But if we leave too soon, we will create disaster there -- a terrorist state, civil war, regional instability -- and the terrorists will be emboldened to strike us again.

So I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of the next year, more than half of the troops who are there now will be home, but not because we set a deadline. That would make it harder.

JOANNE NESTI: Thank you, Senator.

NED LAMONT: I'll take 30 seconds, if I might.

JOANNE NESTI: Okay, you've got it.

NED LAMONT: Look, it's General Casey who said we ought to start bringing our troops home, you know, as early as September or October. It's the American generals who are beginning to come up with the timeline. It's important we set a timeline. The Maliki government is asking us to set a timeline. Many members of Congress are asking us to set a timeline. Many Iraqis are asking us to do that. The Arab League is saying, let's set a timeline, let the Iraqis know that only they can solve this. We don't have permanent designs on their oil, no permanent military bases. Let them have a timeframe that they know they’re going to step up.

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of the Lamont-Lieberman debate that took place last month. Bill Curry joins us now from Hartford, Connecticut. He’s a former Connecticut state comptroller and state senator. He was the Democratic nominee for governor in 1994 and 2004. Bill Curry was also a counselor to President Clinton from 1995 to ’97. He now writes a weekly column for the Hartford Courant. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

BILL CURRY: Great to be with you, Amy. Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, what's happening in your party in Connecticut, Bill, this race between Joseph Lieberman and Ned Lamont that all the country is watching?

BILL CURRY: Well, first of all, the race is certainly a referendum on Bush foreign policy. But at another level, I think it's also a referendum on a kind of centrism within the Democratic Party, which many Democrats feel, especially under President Bush, that their own party’s centrism has become not just ineffectual, but unconscionable.

And certainly this race says two things loud and clear for any Democrat going into the Congress, should the Democrats take the majority going into the presidential primaries: one, support for Bush's foreign wars ensures fierce opposition from within this party; and secondly, and particularly in the case of Senator Lieberman, support for the culture wars, as well, for the Schiavo kinds of crises, for the Bill Bennetts and Limbaughs, etc., that any trafficking in that kind of politics is just no longer, I think, going to be tolerated. People want their party to speak for pluralism, for tolerance and mutual acceptance, for right to privacy.