Possibly the biggest piece of political news this summer was the narrow defeat of three-term incumbent Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary for the Senate by the little-known and completely inexperienced (although very wealthy) Ned Lamont. Since then, Lamont has, for the most part, become the new darling of the Democratic Party, while Lieberman daringly announced that he would run an independent campaign under the banner of “Connecticut for Lieberman.” The battle between Lamont and Lieberman will continue to divide voters until Election Day.

How quickly things change in politics. Less than six years ago, former Vice President Al Gore was lauded for selecting Lieberman as his running mate, because he was considered a strong moral voice and steady Democrat. But memories are short, and Lieberman finds himself without the support of his party in his campaign to stay in the Senate for another six years.

The devastating charge slapped against Lieberman was that he was a “conservative,” and with left-leaning Democratic primary voters looking to take out their anger concerning the Iraq War on someone, Lieberman was a tangible target. The reactionary blogging community was happy to help, with sites like MyDD and DailyKos posting snippet after snippet of random article, free from journalistic constraint, condemning Lieberman for his support for the war. The infamous alleged “kiss” between Senator Lieberman and President Bush was the most prominent image of the campaign, posted without any context at all.

And as they hoped, Lieberman was felled 52-48 in a race that surprised many, but not this editorial writer. For such an intelligent, articulate politician, he had been badly misrepresented in the press (especially the so-called “new media”) and as John McCain understands very well, the press is everything in politics today.

This misrepresentation by various elements of the “new media” becomes clear; a closer examination of Lieberman’s record reveals that he is hardly the conservative opponents make him out to be. The Americans for Democratic Action, a well-respected liberal group, gives Lieberman a 76 lifetime rating, hardly the most “conservative” of Democrats, and more liberal than any Republican. He has voted Democratic on most, if not all, the major issues, including stem-cell research, women’s privacy issues. He also voted against Republican grandstanding issues like flag desecration and the same-sex marriage amendment. Similarly, he was against Alito for Supreme Court Justice, and is a longtime veteran of civil rights campaigns. Lastly, in 2003 and 2004 he earned a sterling 0% from the Christian Coalition.

But to the Democratic primary voters and Ned Lamont’s puppeteers, Joe Lieberman’s long years of service to the Democratic Party and the United States of America were meaningless because he supported the war. I agree; the war is a grave issue and Lieberman’s nearly-unconditional support for the war is disconcerting. But what concerns me is that “the war” has become the litmus test for Democratic politicians, or at least the ones that can be challenged. California’s Dianne Feinstein and New York’s Hillary Clinton, both steadfast supporters of the war, are too imposing for either of them to have faced a substantial primary challenge along similar lines. Let’s be frank; a pure antiwar stance can’t win anything outside of the West Coast and New England; it is clear that the “two coasts” strategy hasn’t worked for the Democrats in the past.

Joe Lieberman’s years of service to the party cannot, and should not, be obscured by his support for a war that most of the 44 Senate Democrats have yet to formally oppose. These same blogging communities are supporting candidates like Claire McCaskill and John Tester, who certainly do not oppose the war. Not a single Senator has called for the immediate pullout of all troops; the Kerry-Feingold axis advocates pullout only after certain conditions have been met (and as of press time, it is clear that none of them have). The war will not be solved simply by an immediate pullout of all troops, and Joe Lieberman recognizes that.

Lieberman, if he wins in November, has the chance to be a truly independent politician, rising above the political fray and harsh bipartisanship that has characterized Congress in recent years. The polls seem to indicate that he will win, as Republicans and moderate Democrats flock to his campaign for a more centrist liberalism, the kind that Bill Clinton championed back in the day. The Senate will be better for it.

Stuart Baimel writes for both The Stanford Review and The Stanford Progressive. He can be contacted at sbaimel@stanford.edu.