Wanted: An opposition.

Byline: The Register-Guard

No one who recalls Joe Lieberman's sputtering presidential campaign in 2004 will be surprised by what happened in Connecticut Tuesday. Lieberman was beaten by Howard Dean two years ago, and by challenger Ned Lamont in Tuesday's Democratic primary. Both Dean and Lamont did what Lieberman, by virtue of his record and his disposition, could not do: act as a conduit for Democrats' anger at President Bush.

Lieberman has been a man of the center since first elected to the Senate in 1988, but in these times the center cannot hold. Al Gore chose him as his running mate in 2000 to distance himself and the party from the scandals of the Clinton administration, and it worked - the Democratic ticket won the popular vote. But George W. Bush won where it really counts, first in the U.S. Supreme Court and then in the Electoral College, and the political space for aisle-straddlers like Lieberman has been shrinking ever since.

As Dean recognized two years ago, and as Lamont proved again Tuesday, Democrats are in no mood to be friendly toward Bush. They're still smarting from the close and disputed elections of 2000 and 2004. They are dismayed by Bush's fiscal, energy, environmental and civil rights policies - but above all Democrats are angry about Iraq. The president, Democrats believe, misled Americans about the need for war, allowed the war to be conducted ineptly, alienated valuable allies, ignored international agreements and sullied the country's reputation with policies of torture and detention. That's just for starters.

Lieberman has been a steadfast supporter of the Bush war effort - indeed, he promoted war with Iraq before the invasion began. In December of 2001 Lieberman was one of 10 senators who signed a letter urging the president to target Iraq after a victory in Afghanistan. At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, he was the only speaker who spoke approvingly of "the liberation of Iraq." He continues to argue that the United States can and must achieve the objective of a peaceful, united, democratic Iraq.

Lieberman pleaded with Connecticut Democrats to judge him on the basis of his entire voting record, which earned him the endorsement of liberal groups and officeholders nationwide. But his Democratic constituents did not see Iraq as a single blemish on an otherwise progressive record. By embracing Bush's Iraq policy, Lieberman embraced all that goes with it - from Abu Ghraib to insinuations that critics of the war are unpatriotic, from domestic spying to a steadily expanding body count.

Republicans are pleased by Lamont's victory; they read it as evidence that the Democrats are positioning themselves for defeat in 2008. Dean's flameout in 2004 suggests they may be right. But voters, whatever their party, support candidates whose policies they believe in. Connecticut Democrats stopped believing in Lieberman. Other Democratic officeholders should take note that members of their party don't see Iraq as just another issue among many. It's an issue on which Democrats expect their leaders to act as the opposition party.