Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Dem Underdogs Surge in Primaries

By John Nichols, The Nation. Posted September 6, 2006.


The issue of Iraq is helping Democratic challengers fight incumbents like Hillary Clinton in upcoming primary elections.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Why McCain and the GOP Are So Afraid of Discussing the Economy
Frances Moore Lappe

Democracy and Elections:
Seven Ways Your Vote Might Not Count This November
Steven Rosenfeld

DrugReporter:
Lunatic Drug Warriors Still Ignore Powerful Pot Science
Rob Kampia

Election 2008:
Weird Theology in Wasilla: A Look Inside Sarah Palin's Pentecostal Church
Bruce Wilson

Environment:
Boatloads of Trouble: How We Are Importing Our Way to Destruction
Stan Cox

ForeignPolicy:
The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It
Tom Engelhardt

Health and Wellness:
Pollution Can Make You Fat
Geoffrey Lean

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Leader of Anti-Immigration Movement Calls Issue a "Skirmish in a Wider War"
Eric Ward

Media and Technology:
Watch Rachel Maddow's Debut Show Launch on MSNBC Tonight: She Fights Lies Uttered by Politicians, Repeated by Media
The Masher

Movie Mix:
Does "Working Girls" Still Work?
Ariel Dougherty

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Rutgers Center Helps Women Enter Politics
Alison Bowen

Rights and Liberties:
On Top of Jail Time, Prisoners Now Face Fees and Surcharges
Emily Jane Goodman

Sex and Relationships:
What Republicans Can Learn from "Gossip Girl"
Sarah Seltzer

War on Iraq:
One Fifth of Iraq Funding Goes to Private Contractors
Willam Fisher

Water:
Is California on the Brink of Environmental Collapse?
Rachel Olivieri

More stories by John Nichols

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Antiwar challenger Ned Lamont's defeat of prowar Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is generally accepted as a referendum-like victory for the message that progressives have been urging the Democratic Party to embrace. But the 2006 primary season--which will see its busiest day September 12, when nine states and DC pick nominees for national seats--ought to be seen as a series of referendums on the war. Lamont's win was not the first of its kind since The Nation pledged last year to identify and support only those candidates prepared to bring a speedy end to the war ["Democrats and the War," November 28], nor, we hope, will it be the last.

Montana Senate contender Jon Tester and Iowa House contender Bruce Braley won primary contests before Lamont bested Lieberman August 8, and September primaries could see additional wins for candidates who want to start bringing troops home from Iraq. Some of the most telling contests will take place in Maryland. In the crowded Democratic primary to replace retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes, former NAACP president Kweisi Mfume staked out a strong antiwar position early by joining a summer 2005 rally supporting the demand by Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, for a meeting with George W. Bush. Mfume highlights his participation in protests against the war and features a "cost of war" ticker on his campaign website. That's in stark contrast to the other frontrunner, Representative Ben Cardin, who opposed authorizing the President to go to war but has failed to join the push for an exit strategy by the House Out of Iraq Caucus. Last year he voted against California Democrat Lynn Woolsey's call for a withdrawal plan, and his campaign pronouncements about the war have been distinctly cautious.

The Maryland Senate race is complicated by several less prominent candidates who have taken strong antiwar positions, but polls suggest that the contest is between Mfume and Cardin--who have split major endorsements from unions and top Democrats. A Mfume win would be another signal that grassroots Democrats want their party to join the clear majority of Americans who would like to start bringing troops home soon. A similar message could come from the state's 3rd Congressional District, where the primary frontrunner in the contest to replace Cardin, John Sarbanes, the retiring senator's son, says, "The Democratic leadership in Congress must take action immediately--that means today--by petitioning the President to deliver to the appropriate committees in Congress within thirty days two proposed disengagement plans for Iraq: one that would bring our troops home within six months; the other that would bring them home within twelve months."

But the Maryland race that most closely resembles the Lamont-Lieberman contest is playing out in the state's 4th Congressional district, where Donna Edwards, former executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, is mounting an aggressive antiwar challenge to Democratic Representative Al Wynn, who voted to authorize Bush to wage the war and who has backed the Administration on a host of other issues. Says Edwards, "Albert Wynn is Maryland's Joe Lieberman."

In Rhode Island another test of sentiments regarding the war will come in a Republican primary, where moderate Lincoln Chafee, the only GOP senator to oppose going to war, is being challenged by Steve Laffey, who has big-money support from the conservative Club for Growth. A Chafee win would set up a rare November race between two war critics, since the Democratic primary candidates share Chafee's skepticism about Iraq. The more tepidly antiwar Sheldon Whitehouse, a former state attorney general, is the clear frontrunner, but retired Marine Carl Sheeler has run a spirited "Bring Home the Troops" campaign that calls for the President's impeachment for deceiving Congress and the American people.

Every vote Sheeler wins against Whitehouse, the choice of party leaders, will tell Washington Democrats that party activists want to see more muscular opposition to Bush and his war. The same goes for votes cast in the New York Senate primary for former National Writers Union president Jonathan Tasini, who is taking on Hillary Clinton. The Lamont win in neighboring Connecticut is focusing attention on Tasini's antiwar challenge to Clinton, who has responded by edging away from her Lieberman-like support for the Administration's stay-the-course policy. Even with the New York Times telling Clinton she should debate Tasini--if only to clarify exactly where she now stands--the low-budget challenge to the presumed frontrunner for the party's 2008 presidential nomination faces daunting odds. But Tasini's run has succeeded in making the war what it should be in every 2006 contest: the central issue.

Digg!

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
war
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 6, 2006 2:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since war is the central issue in most voter minds candidates who favor withdrawal from the Iraq war and no starting of a new war will have a big advantage. Incumbents who favor continuing the war scenario are definitely at risk of losing their seats, especially if they are Democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Sep 6, 2006 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would love to be optimistic but with Diebolt and the Republicans in charge of the electiion process I am very sanguine about the November elections. My Mother always said "don't believe anything of what you hear and only half of what you see". These days I'm afraid to do either

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sickofsleaze Posted by: badkitty
Hillary is NOT a possiblity: she is an Opportunist
Posted by: wawa on Sep 6, 2006 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On November 15, 2005 during Hillary's trip to Israel regarding the construction there of a 27 foot high metal and concrete barrier:
"THE WALL" as coined by the International Court of Justice, AND which deemed it illegal and that it must come down,

But, Hillary was quoted in Haaretz:
Expressing support for the wall because it "is against terrorists" and "not against the Palestinian people."


The Senator did NOT go into the Little Town of Bethlehem in Occupied Territory to see how The Wall has devastated the economy and captured the indigenous people is open air prisons.


Israel certainly claims that The Wall's construction is designed to counter terrorist attacks by building a barrier between Israelis and Palestinians, but
THE TRUTH is The Wall does NOT follow the Green Line, negating the claim it is for 'security.'

Israel has built the bulk of the wall, well inside the OPT for the purpose of connecting the ILLEGAL Israeli settlements/colonies, and dividing Palestinian's from their land and resources.

Only twenty percent of the wall's route is inside Israel or along the Green Line, while 80 percent deviates from it, encompassing fifty-five Israeli settlements and other land in the OPT.

These settlements contain the vast majority of more than 400,000 settlers/colonists living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The wall succeeds in providing contiguity among the illegal settlements, their access roads, and Israel, while severing Palestinian cities, towns and villages from each other and from their land.

B'Tselem, a leading human rights organization in Israel, unequivocally concluded in its September 2005 report, "Under the Guise of Security",
that contrary to the state's claim that the Barrier's route is based solely on security reasons, the main consideration in setting the route in some locations was to include on the "Israeli" side of the Barrier areas which are slated for settlements expansion.

In some cases, the expansion amounts to the establishment of new settlements.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel's construction of the wall within the boundaries of the OPT contravenes international humanitarian law and is tantamount to an illegal annexation of the settlements on the "Israel side" of the wall.

The court wrote that Israel should cease construction of the wall on Palestinian territory, dismantle those portions already constructed there, and pay reparations for damage caused. Unfortunately, Israel has failed to follow the court's decision and continues its construction of the wall.

The court also reiterated its finding, shared by international legal commentators and every major human rights organization in the world, that the settlements themselves violate international humanitarian law.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits Israel, as the occupying power in the OPT, from transferring members of its own population into the OPT;

Article 55 of the Hague Regulations, a component of customary international law, also prohibits Israel from making permanent changes to the territory, such as establishing Jewish-only settlements, that do not benefit the local inhabitants.

These laws were designed in recognition of the tremendous damage that colonization of occupied territories causes to the lives of the indigenous population.

Only a pandering politician or an ignorant IDIOT could say that the wall is NOT very much "against" the Palestinian people.
TBC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the second 1/2 of above
Posted by: wawa on Sep 6, 2006 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wall separates students from their schools, families from their relatives and friends, workers from their jobs, and farmers from their agricultural land, greenhouses, olive and citrus trees, and even water.

The wall has severely circumscribed the already limited access of a number of Palestinian cities and villages to their local hospitals, schools and social service facilities.

Many Palestinians are now trapped on the "Israel side" of the wall, and must special permits from the Israeli government to reside in their own homes!

By making movement and in some cases residence so difficult, the wall is clearly intended to encourage Palestinians to leave for other areas of the West Bank, or even other countries.

Even the Supreme Court of Israel has recognized that the Israeli government cannot ignore altogether these humanitarian impacts!
But the Senator panders to her constituency by ignoring the facts on the ground w3hen stating The ILLEGAL Wall is good security.


Hillary apparently was clueless that while she was there-and for months before and after- ANY would be terrorist could enter Jerusalem from the west side of Bethlehem [Beit Jala] where the army had vacated the checkpoint and The Wall had yet to be completed.


IMAGINE if Israel and America respected and adhered to International Law and protected the human rights of the Palestinians existing under the Israeli military occupation.

This former New Yorker emailed the Jr. Senator about my distress over her insensitive and erroneous comments in Haaretz.

But, because I no longer reside in the state of my birth and youth, my email was NOT accepted as I am not a NY constituent.
Any New Yorker reading this, plz email it to the Senator.

thnx,
public service message from the
.org
WeAreWideawake

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, the good news is we are VOTING OUT ALL INCUMBANTS....
Posted by: Prophit on Sep 6, 2006 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and the powers that be (Cheney) are actually losing it over that fact. Look how he went bonkers about Lieberman. LOL He actually acted scared. I guess "we, the people" aren't near as complacent and near as sheeplike as he had thought, so now they want to "Fluoridate" our food to bring us into deeper apathy. (The nazi's used fluoride on the prisoners in the death camps to keep them calm and sedate).

I just hope the "good republicans" (not the neocons) succeed in doing what the dems are doing. It appears that might be the case. Anyone who was a bush clone is not doing well. I hope Chaffee wins in Rhode Island as he got beat up pretty bad for his courageous stand against the war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Opposing unjustified war(s) is not enough
Posted by: cold2touch on Sep 6, 2006 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The entire immoral swamp must be drained and that means the "Wah on Terra", full blown, no holds barred inquiry into 9/11, booting the neocons out of DoD, State and the rest of Administration, canning the Patriot Act and Homeland Security and last but absolutely not the least, impeachment proceedings against Bush & Cheney as well as the whole putrid bunch of them off to War Crimes Tribunal and trial for treason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War is an importnt issue but not the only issue.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Sep 7, 2006 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK we've seen that candidates can win if they support the anti-war movement but this doesn't get us campaign finance reform, universal health care, or any of the other issues important to workingclass people. Suppose there's a terrorist attack and the pro-war numbers go up to 52%. Elections shouldn't be about one issue. They should be about a range of issues important to the voters in the parties' platforms. Join The Lincoln Initiative today!
Bob Reichenbach
Director, The Lincoln Initiative

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]