Article about Lieberman, and Kerry is given props for campaigning

for the (Dem) winner. I can't decide whether this is good or if Kerry is the scapegoat. I guess it depends on who wins.

In Lieberman Fight, Some Faithful Feel Torn

As Senator Joseph I. Lieberman battles to retain his seat in Connecticut, some factions within the national Democratic Party are quietly preparing to campaign against the three-term senator if he loses the primary on Tuesday and runs as an independent in the general election in November, numerous Democrats said yesterday.

Although Mr. Lieberman has attracted support from several of his Senate colleagues — and former President Bill Clinton appeared with him in the state last week — only a handful have pledged to remain loyal to him if he loses to his antiwar challenger, Ned Lamont, and mounts an independent campaign.

Furthermore, some forces within the party, including Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, will be willing to campaign actively for Mr. Lamont if he is pitted against Mr. Lieberman in the general election, many Democratic officials said. Some Democratic officials also say the Democratic National Committee will probably support Mr. Lamont if he wins the primary, though Howard Dean, the party’s chairman, has been neutral leading up to the primary.

That would set the stage for an extraordinary battle pitting some national Democrats against a fixture of the party who was their own vice presidential candidate in 2000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/nyregion/02lieberman....

Lieberman has shown no particular respect for Kerry, and I say, good for Kerry. Lieberman stood up on the senate floor on Republican time to talk about how Kerry's plan for Iraq was "cut 'n' run." I don't know that you could call this payback, but if it were it would be richly deserved.

in FL in 2004, Lieberman praised Bush's actions in Iraq. What part of surrogate did he not understand. (Fortunately - as the primaries showed - he didn't have a huge base of support. His comments MAY though have made a wavering Democrat concerned about comfortable voting for Bush.

wins the primary.(Some, more than others) He would be, after all the Democratic candidate. How could the party support an independent over their party's choice? Didn't H. Clinton say as much herself, as well as Biden? They will support whoever wins the primary in the general election.
I wonder why they singled out Kerry only, rather than saying something like, many top Democrats will support whoever wins the primary?

Democratic Presidential candidate. That does give him an added 'bonus' and at the same time an added 'deficit'.

the forces for good who are in the Senate now. The Democratic wing, if you will. ;)

but I did see Ned Lamont on Colbert Report the other night, and he sounds and awful lot like JK when he talks about Iraq.

Early on I recall some saying they would support Lieberman. (I don't want to say names as I'm going by memory and I could be wrong about who). One rational was that Lieberman would still vote for Democrats to control the Senate.

That was also much earlier in the race when few expected that Lieberman risked being defeated. I suspect that Democrats are getting more used to the idea that Lamont can win and might no longer be as willing to support someone running against the party's official nominee.