Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Washington Post chief political reporter Dan Balz and congressional reporter Shailagh Murray were online Monday, Aug. 7, at 11 a.m. ET . Both were in Connecticut today in advance of Tuesday's Democratic primary between Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.) and challenger Ned Lamont. .

Lieberman Confronts Criticism of His War Stance , ( Post, Aug. 7, 2006 )

Political analysis from Post reporters and interviews with top newsmakers. Listen live on Washington Post Radio or subscribe to a podcast of the show.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Charlottesville, Va.: David Brooks recently described the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary as an inquisition; Newt Gingrich yesterday classified it as an insurgency. Why so much over-heated rhetoric being applied to what is a staple of party politics. It's going on almost simultaneously in Rhode Island as a matter of fact, where a Republican incumbent is being challenged in a party primary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall similar rhetorical excesses being applied to the Rhode Island primary by conservative commentators.

Shailagh Murray: Good morning everyone, and greetings from Connecticut. Dan Balz and I are both here covering the final day of the little primary that could -- wow, who'd have thunk it? The latest Quinnipiac poll shows the race has tightened somewhat in the past week, with Lieberman now trailing by 6 points. But that just adds to the drama of what's become the best political story of the year.

As for your question, Charlottesville, you raise an interesting point. One explanation is that no one has taken the RI race particularly seriously, although that could change is Laffey really does appear to be closing in on Linc.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: So many folks are opining on the cosmic significance of a possible Lieberman loss. Isn't it possible that he has just run a really lousy campaign? Today's article in The Post says that Lieberman has just now decided to directly address the main issue in the race: his position on the war. Maybe if he had done that three months ago he wouldn't be losing.

washingtonpost.com: Lieberman Confronts Criticism of His War Stance (Post, August 7)

Dan Balz: It's easy to get ahead of things. The new Quinnipiac Poll has got Lamont at 51, Lieberman at 45. Lieberman had been pretty lifeless until this weekend. On Sunday he started campaigning with real energy. There are Lieberman supporters who wish he had taken on the war issue much earlier but he didn't do so. We'll see if that turns out to have been mistake.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif. (the "liberal bubble"): Good morning! The race between Lamont and Lieberman is reaching a conclusion, and Lieberman is gaining... As I recall this is normal in a race for the polls to show a tighter race the closer election day gets. What do you think? Is Lieberman still in trouble?

Dan Balz: Yes, he's still in serious trouble. Lamont has been over 50 percent in the last three Quinnipiac polls. The margin has changed but Lieberman still has ground to make up. Turnout on Tuesday is obviously critical.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Is there a conventional wisdom number inside the Beltway for "if Lieberman loses by -X] percent, he needs to abandon his independent run?" Will fellow senators urge him to quit even if he loses by a percentage point, or does it have to be 5 percent+, say?

Dan Balz: No and it wouldn't be worth much in any case. Obviously a huge loss would add to pressure not to run as independent but there's no clear line of demarcation. Lieberman has given no indication that he's changed his mind on going independent, if he loses. But there will certainly be pressure on him not to do so.

_______________________

San Diego, Calif.: In a country where politics is played 50+1, Joe Lieberman holds sway.

The media has provided little context with which to view this politician, other than his support for the war and the president. There were rumors in the media mill that he was being considered to replace Rumsfeld in Defense. He clearly is an inside the Beltway politician. Polls in Connecticut show that Lieberman is more popular with Republicans than Democrats.

Could it not be said that Al Gore added him to the ticket for the same reason he may lose the Connecticut primary? Doesn't it make sense for the Democrats to turn to a candidate on the left if they hope for change in such a volatile political environment.

Shailagh Murray: I agree that Lieberman's form of congenial bipartisanship has fallen out of fashion. You could argue that it's not really a natural state anyway. I mean, the most effective leaders are typically people who hold strong views and convert others to share them.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: What needs to happen, politically, for Americans to start driving cars fueled by something other than oil? Thanks.

Shailagh Murray: Congress will have to ban gasoline.

_______________________

Alpharetta, Ga.: Some people bring up the late Vietnam parallels to now, but have any strategists brought up the Goldwater-Reagan sort of thing, that these activists could be part of a future rise in Democratic politics?

Shailagh Murray: Are you referring to the bloggers? In the case of Lamont, I think the test will be how much influence they retain when and if Lamont wins the Senate seat.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Does anyone see the irony here in the fact that Senator Lieberman did not give up his Senate seat when he was simultaneously running for VP and now stands to lose his seat in a primary?

Shailagh Murray: There are lots of ironies in this race. As Sen. Lieberman pointed out last night during his speech, he's the only Democrat who has twice run against George Bush. Lamont's campaign is not unlike the race that Lieberman ran against Weicker 18 years ago. What's most interesting to me about this race is how you can completely blindside even a supposedly sophisticated career politician.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Most of the stories about Lieberman focus on his pro-war position, with very little about Lieberman's role in helping to shelve the Democrats' powerful filibuster weapon which they had been using effectively to keep Roberts, Alito, etc. off the Court. Now that the Court is turning to the Right as a result shouldn't this aspect of Lieberman's collaboration with the White House agenda get more ink?

Dan Balz: The war and President Bush are the biggest reasons whey Lieberman is in trouble here, but there are other factors -- national and local. You can find a series of votes or statements in Lieberman's record that individual Democrats take issue with and the Alito nomination is one of them. They've all taken a toll, but the war has been the issue that tipped things.

_______________________

Pittsford, N.Y.: So what do you think, Dan and Shailagh -- is this World War III or World War IV? I'm talking about the Lamont-Lieberman race. It seems to me that since it began before Newt Gingrich declared World War III, it should probably be World War III (which makes Newt's world war into World War IV). But I'm just a lowly reader -- it's up to high-powered journalists like you to make this kind of tough call. So what do you think?

Dan Balz: I leave this to Shailagh's wisdom and sense of history.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: This might be a reflection of my views, but I was surprised that the Lieberman article this morning didn't contain any counter-weight to his assertions that he has been a critic of Bush on the war, that he hasn't tried to stifle dissent, that he's been the victim of a smear campaign, etc.

It seems like this article was purely recording his speech without any evaluation of the claims. Shouldn't good reporting give a little more context or substance to the article?

Dan Balz: The story was, as you say, a story of Lieberman's speech. So much of the coverage to date has focused on the fact that he has been a prime supporter of the war, has been critical of Democrats for raising objections, has supported Bush's policy in large measure, was embraced on the House floor by the president (the famous "kiss" moment), etc., etc. So I think his position as having been one of the most pro-Iraq war senators in the country has been well established. This was his effort to counter and the story reported that. But it was written from the premise that Lieberman has been a supporter of the war and that he was trying to offer a different picture.

_______________________

Glenwood Springs, Colo.: Is there any chance the Lieberman election (or lack thereof) is one those oft talked about (but seldom seen) watershed events?

Perhaps it is first real salvo fired by what I might call the Internet Generation - certainly a larger constituency than say the evangelicalistas.

Shailagh Murray: Hmm, well this is the big question for Tuesday. I am not convinced that that the "Internet generation," as you call it, has anywhere near the fire power of the evangelical movement, which strikes at the core beliefs of millions of people, and also predominates in a whole lot of crucial states where there's no other comparable organizing entity. In responding to an earlier question, I noted that the real impact of the Internet community in the Lamont race will come if and when he is elected -- are they like the labor movement, with a cogent set of demands or principles? Doesn't seem so. But the evangelical movement is both -- a campaign juggernaut plus immensely influential on the policy front.

_______________________

Glenside, Pa.: We hear a lot about intensity and passion. In your reporting, did it feel like the Lamont voters were more intense than the Lieberman crowd?

Shailagh Murray: Yes, in my four or five trips here, Lamont has definitely generated the better crowd response.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: What is your opinion of what will happen in Connecticut if Lieberman loses in the primary and runs as an Independent? Does the Republican running have a chance in that instance?

Dan Balz: The Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, is not a powerhouse and there is talk -- actually some fear -- that, if Lieberman runs as an independent, the Republicans might try to force Schlesinger to drop out and replace him with someone more attractive. Democrats fear that an effective Republican might steal the seat with 38 percent of the vote or something like that. But all that depends on how things turn out on Tuesday.

_______________________

New Jersey: I don't understand why Lieberman has drawn so much commiseration from Washington types when senators like Max Cleland were virtually run out of town because they were targeted with true viciousness. Not too mention John Kerry's being targeted with outright lies about his service in Vietnam.

Lieberman is being targeted because he is on the wrong side of the most important policy issue so far in this new millennium. How is that unfair? This is not a minor issue.

Shailagh Murray: Clarity from New Jersey. Although the millennium is still young. Who knows what loathsome conflicts may await us 30 years from now?

_______________________

San Jose, Calif.: In your article, you quoted Lieberman as saying: "in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." and then you wrote "On Sunday he said the words were meant not to stifle criticism but to warn against the kind of partisan exploitation that he said Republicans had used against Cleland."

Huh? Lieberman's explanation appears nonsensical. Is there any logical connection between the meaning of Lieberman's first statement and his explanation?

Also, there was an editorial in The Post that Dems are against Lieberman because of his refusal to change his mind about the war, and not because of his chumminess to Bush. I think the editorial is factually wrong. Has polling been done to see whether Dems are against Lieberman because of (1) his continuing support of the war, or (2) his chumminess to Bush?

Dan Balz: He is in trouble for both reasons. In recent Quinnipiac polls, 36 to 44 percent of Lamont supporters said the war was the main issue for opposing Lieberman. But if you talk to voters, they just as often cite what they regard as Lieberman's support for Bush. Democrats here are very angry at Bush and therefore angry at anyone who appears to be supporting him. That's why Lieberman was at pains on Sunday to say he has opposed Bush, both domestically and on some occasions on the war.

_______________________

Durham, N.H.: It is very interesting to see career politicians like Lieberman getting blindsided.

The point is that career politicians have a sense of entitlement, and more importantly they feel that they can say and do anything and then get re-elected just on the power of incumbency.

Doesn't all this show a clear disconnect between how Washington works and what the people away from it feel.?

Dan Balz: That may be one important message from this year's elections, not only in Connecticut but elsewhere. We've seen evidence of disaffection toward incumbents in polls and we hear it as we go around from state to state. People outside the beltway don't think Washington is working for them.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I worked on Lieberman's campaign in '94 as a bright-eyed college student. Back then, he appealed to the middle ground and didn't do anything to rile up either side. Plus no one can remember who ran against him.

Now, my family back in CT is ready to rally against him. He is not who they elected, nor is he listening to them. If he does lose in the primary and decides to run as an independent and loses, his political career is over. Even if he wins as an independent, he's lost more support than ever in the Senate. How can he not see this?

Shailagh Murray: Well Arlington, that's what you get for being a bright eyed college student. But your point about your family is well taken, and it's exactly why the Lieberman folks have dreaded tomorrow for some weeks now.

_______________________

Edison, N.J.: What is the rationale given by Lieberman as to why he would run as an independent if he loses tomorrow's primary? And, during either of their debates, was the question addressed to him as to why he would take this position when Lamont has said he would support Lieberman if he wins tomorrow?

Dan Balz: Lieberman told our colleague David Broder weeks ago -- even before he had announced plans to start gathering signatures for a possible independent candidacy -- that he wanted the entirety of his record to be put before the entirety of the Connecticut electorate. At that time he was hoping to make the case that, however voters feel about Iraq, they should look to areas of agreement in his record. Sunday's speech showed that he still has a problem getting Democrats at least to move beyond the war.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: One of the disappointing things about a possible Lamont win is that it will give the blogosphere a false sense of power that is bound to turn into disappointment fairly soon. It isn't any more likely that Ned Lamont is going to be able to end the war or re-write the rules of the Senate than that Patrick Fitzgerald was going to indict the entire White House and explain to everybody that the war was a big scam. Sorry to burst anyone's balloon here, but this is not at all the revolution that many would like to make it out to be. I recently hear some bloggers crowing about sites that had raised $50,000 dollars for Lamont, compared to the $3 million that he pumped into the campaign from his own fortune. Reality Check, anyone?

Dan Balz: Useful point to keep in mind, although Lamont and the bloggers have clearly embraced one another and his candidacy got some early lift from the buzz he was getting on the blogs. But the money is insignificant compared to Lamont's personal investment in the race.

_______________________

Memphis, Tenn.: Aside from when Hillary Clinton initially joined the New York Senate race, I can't remember the last time a U.S. Senate race got the attention the Connecticut race is getting, can you think of other recent examples? Secondly, is the larger message of the Connecticut race that Democrats can start back embracing liberal ideals -- or continue to hold them at arm's length and remain Republican lite?

Shailagh Murray: I can't think of any recent example, although your state has a pretty good race too. Aside from all the obvious reasons, I think Lieberman-Lamont has drawn lots of attention because it's a true contest, with multiple issues at stake, and it can't be clearly explained by voter registration. For instance, when Daschle lost, that made sense -- he represents a Republican state and Bush was on the ballot. This has a purity, a live quality, to it that is challenging for us reporters. We all love this story.

_______________________

Denver, Colo.: Do you think that the Connecticut race is also about incumbency and Washington insiders?

Shailagh Murray: That's another theory. Voters do tell pollsters that they're sick of everyone in Washington these days, so perhaps Lieberman is feeling some of that. But I would add that not all incumbents are the same. You take a guy like Chuck Grassley, who goes home to Iowa every weekend, and loads up every bill that passes the Senate with pork for his state, or Chuck Schumer -- these are politicians who never forget where they come from, no matter what they achieve in Washington. My favorite is Ted Stevens of Alaska, who isn't particularly well liked in his home state, but who wins in a blow out in every election.

_______________________

Baghdad, Iraq (yes, no kidding):

Imagine that Lieberman loses the primary by enough votes to make an independent candidacy seem too risky, and then "gracefully" bows out and yet doesn't get a plumb spot in Bush administration. What would an executive coach likely propose for his next job? It would be unseemly for him to go skulking around the Senate halls begging his ex-colleagues for votes on things, right, so then what sort of job, do you suppose? Thanks, from Joe (hopping between the mortar shells).

Dan Balz: Anyone sending in from Baghdad deserves a reply. There are all sorts of possibilities for Lieberman, if he were to lose on Tuesday and then decide not to run as an independent. Despite what you say about not getting a job in the administration, he continues to be mentioned as a possible replacement for Rumsfeld. The Weekly Standard suggested that, if reelected as an independent, he would make an ideal running mate in 2008 for McCain or any of the other GOP presidential candidates. I agree: I can't imagine him becoming a lobbyist. His life has been in public service for so many years that I assume he would try to find another way to remain in the public or university sector.

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: Thank you for your insights...

Do you have poll results suggesting what percentage of Connecticut Republicans would vote for Lieberman, and when was the poll taken?

I also want to second New Jersey's reminder of the Cleland-bashing.

Dan Balz: There's nothing reliable on that front. Quinnipiac did one in June, when Lieberman was still leading Lamont, that showed he was a clear favorite to win as an independent, but the world has changed since then and will change again after Tuesday's results are in. A number of Democrats think he might have real trouble winning as an independent if he loses here Tuesday, particularly if Lamont's margin looks healthy.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Good morning, and thanks for chatting today! Earlier in this chat, you wrote: "As Sen. Lieberman pointed out last night during his speech, he's the only Democrat who has twice run against George Bush." This is yet another untruth of Lieberman's, and a rather pitiful one intended to inflate his own importance.

Please don't repeat it as if it were true. Lieberman ran for VP, against Richard B. Cheney in 2000, and then sought the 2004 presidential nomination, losing to (among others) John Kerry. You should uphold a higher standard than to repeat this Lieberman fallacy! Thanks....

Shailagh Murray: You are right on the technical distinctions. But he did participate in both elections -- including in 2004, after the war had started. To me that just makes his conciliatory comments more puzzling.

_______________________

Grifton, N.C.: I have to take issue with Fairfax, regarding Lieberman's role in the "Gang of 14" rebellion that headed off the "nuclear option," which may have ended the right to filibuster a judicial nominee. It was entirely possible that Frist had the votes to secure the nuke option, which would have struck a very damaging blow to the minority party in the Senate. One could argue that Lieberman and the other "Gang" members did the Dems a favor.

Dan Balz: That is entirely possible, which is one reason some Republicans were upset with Sen. McCain for making the deal. Later, however, Republicans concluded that the Gang of 14 had effectively squashed the possibility of a filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Here's my prediction: No independent bid by Lieberman. The Clintons will call him off, perhaps by dangling some future cabinet posts in front of him. Schumer, Dodd, and Boxer will also push him hard to let it go.

Shailagh Murray: That is certainly a widely held prediction at the moment. If I didn't have to face you all next week, I might make it myself.

_______________________

Boca Raton, Fla.: There is so much discussion of the implications of Lieberman losing. What if he pulls out a squeaker tomorrow? What analysis will follow?

Dan Balz: It will be regarded as a remarkable comeback -- even by his own people, I suspect.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: I'm really fascinated to hear about what kinds of voters who've seen supporting Lamont. From what I've read, there is definitely a presence of white-collar liberal professionals, but in one Reuters article, three voters were mentioned: a retired truck driver, a PR adviser, and a researcher at Yale.

Shailagh Murray: Actually, in recent polls, Lamont has the advantage in almost every category, his weakest being voters over 65, and who make under $30,000, and with a high school education or less. The two camps have focused almost all their energies in recent weeks on African American voters.

_______________________

Nebraska: Lieberman may or may not have run against Bush twice - but how does that polish his image? He lost.

Shailagh Murray: He did indeed.

I guess this was a good chat for Bob Ney -- your questions about Lieberman/Lamont were so numerous that we couldn't get to that big news. Although I'm not sure how big an impact that will have, given that his problems have been well established for some time.

Enjoy the spectacle of the next couple of days, and thanks to all for participating. Cheers, Shailagh and Dan

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.