An underwhelming spiel
ONE STORY LINE about Connecticut is that single-issue zealots are hoping to drive US Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee, out of the party's elected ranks.
That's how Lieberman frames it, certainly: A meta-matter in this primary race is whether ``Democrats are going to start applying litmus tests -- you have to be 100 percent with us or you are not with us," he says in an interview. ``The American political parties, when they have been strong and victorious, have never done that."
There's no doubt that many Democrats are upset with Lieberman over his support for the Iraq war and that infantile elements of the blogosphere have been bilious.
But from what I saw in Connecticut this week, if Ned Lamont prevails in Tuesday's Democratic primary, the larger story will tell of a smart, supple, wealthy challenger who adroitly tapped the deep ambivalence toward Lieberman -- and of an incumbent who had forgotten how to wage an effective campaign.
Lieberman is a folksy grip-and-quipster with a solid record of accomplishment. However, watching him at four Eastern Connecticut campaign stops on Tuesday, it was hard to believe this was a campaign by a three-term US senator who ran nationally in both 2000 and 2004. The events seemed poorly planned, the crowds small, the candidate languid and unfocused.
Granted, it was a sweltering day. Still, it was hard to sense any of the momentum Lieberman claimed to see in the aftermath of Bill Clinton's July 24 visit. (And indeed, on Thursday, a new Quinnipiac University poll showed Lieberman slipping to a double-digit deficit behind his rival.)
In contrast, Lamont was on his game, drawing enthusiastic gatherings in several small towns, and delivering a crisp, crafted progressive message.
Lieberman's best event of those I saw was a stop at the Oakdale Elementary School, where a renovation project provided a ready-made audience of union laborers.
There, Lieberman told the several dozen workers that in the final days he was taking his counsel from Clinton.
``Every campaign is about tomorrow," he declared.
The problem is, Lieberman's pitch really isn't about tomorrow, but yesterday. It hardly qualifies as a message at all, if by that one means a coherent, ideas-anchored narrative about one's political perspective and priorities. Rather, it's a quick review of the defense and transportation dollars he's brought to Connecticut, the clout he wields, and his support of a number of specific labor issues.
It's a thoroughly underwhelming campaign spiel. And in later stops Lieberman didn't even offer that much.
At the Plum Tomato restaurant in Colchester, one among the crowd of 25 or so was Ed Turchan, a retired guidance counselor who said he had voted for Lieberman in the past, but probably wouldn't this time because of the war. And yet, he might still, if the senator would say something about Iraq that made some sense to him. Lieberman, however, didn't address that -- or any -- issue. Instead, he contented himself with shaking hands, then sat down to chat with longtime supporters.
When I told Lieberman about Turchan later, the senator chuckled ruefully. ``It was just what you were looking for," he joked.
Actually, voters such as Turchan demonstrate one of the incumbent's big problems. Unless asked, he was disinclined to discuss an issue much on people's minds. One matter under campaign consideration has been whether Lieberman, who plans an independent candidacy if he loses the Democratic nomination, should address the war in his final TV ads, acknowledging and trying to move beyond the discontent with his stand. ``We're looking at it," he said. But the campaign has since decided against that approach, one source says. No surprise there from a candidate who seems more comfortable simply trying to change the subject.
Lamont, by contrast, stressed his own opposition to the war and his support for withdrawing our front-line troops within a year. But he also spoke about mandating employer-based health insurance, fuel and energy efficiency standards, energy diversification, clean government, and a less-arrogant foreign policy. In the small towns of Killingworth and East Haddam, he drew audiences half again as large as any I saw for Lieberman.
His crowds tended toward white-collar liberals, people more interested in ideas than experience, progressive commitment than clout. But the voters I talked with were hardly single-issue sorts. Nor was the candidate they applauded a one-cause caricature, but rather a challenger who handily outperformed the incumbent.
Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com 
