Now he's pushed off so long, he seems confused about whom or what he represents. He now says he's a good Democrat, but he's collecting petitions to run as a third party man if he loses the primary today. He now says he's a critic of the war, even though Bush gave him a famous kiss to thank him for his unstinting support. He now says dissent is good, when before he essentially challenged the patriotism of critics.

What happened to Lieberman? He pushed off his own voters for so long that he stopped representing their views. His untiring defense of President Bush finally outraged them. Belatedly, he found himself challenged by a real progressive -- Ned Lamont -- in his primary. When he fell behind in the polls, he experienced a deathbed conversion -- and trotted out the Democratic Senate club members to attest to his liberalism.

In Connecticut, Lamont is running against Lieberman on the Democratic Party platform. Lamont is against the war in Iraq and opposes an unending occupation. Lieberman supports more troops and a commitment without end. Lamont is for national health care; Lieberman even chided Hillary's efforts. Lamont is for providing pre-K for every child and investing in our schools; Lieberman ranks higher military budgets and the war of choice in Iraq as higher priorities. Lamont is for raising the minimum wage and trade accords that protect labor rights, not just capital rights. Lieberman's DLC scorned the minimum wage, and the senator has never met a corporate trade accord he didn't like.

Lieberman's response has been to run what can only be called a scurrilous campaign. He didn't choose to defend his position on Iraq; his campaign slurred Lamont as a wealthy dilettante, spread disreputable flyers about him in the black community. Lamont wanted a debate on the issues; the senator chose a mudbath.

After the 2004 election defeat, Al From, the head of the Democratic Leadership Council, hailed an article that called for Democrats to prove their strength on national security by embracing the war and "purging" the "Michael Moore, moveon.org" wing of the Democratic Party -- that is, those who opposed the war in Iraq. Even then it was a bizarre notion -- that the very folks who supported the worst foreign policy debacle in memory would purge the folks who rightfully opposed the folly.

But voters in Connecticut aren't trying to purge Lieberman. They like the man; they are just voting for someone who represents their views rather than abandons them to the prevailing winds. This isn't personal, Joe, it's principled. And if he loses, Lieberman won't be purged from the party. Instead, he apparently plans to leave it himself to set up his own party. The final push-off.

And that will then be the test of the Democratic leadership. They trooped in to tell Connecticut voters to swallow their principles and stay with an incumbent who doesn't represent them. If Lamont does win on Tuesday, they need to respect the will of those same voters -- and stump for Lamont publicly while privately telling Lieberman to accept his defeat honorably.

Pollsters tell Democrats that they suffer an "identity gap." People just don't know what they stand for anymore. Lamont's challenge to Lieberman has already begun to change that. Lieberman, at the very least, has gotten the message. And the DLC -- the Democrats for the Leisure Class -- are beginning to learn that working Americans are looking not for politicians who duck and cover, but for leaders who will stand and fight.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company

###