Hackett was the model candidate for those on the Left who feel that Democrats need to campaign with clear, no-frills messages.
Targeting Lieberman
But Ohio isn't the only place where activists are in revolt.
Lamont's candidacy is fed by grassroots objections to Lieberman's support of the Iraq War as well as his backing for other Bush initiatives, including free trade and Bush's faith-based initiative. Lamont is opposed to the Iraq War and is campaigning on the charge that Lieberman has shifted too far right.
Until now, Lieberman's campaign has tried to ignore the primary challenge. But a recent New York Times profile of Lamont's campaign may be the first signal that Lieberman faces more than token opposition in the primary battle.
And in Montana, where Democrats hope to unseat conservative Republican Sen. Conrad Burns, the Democratic primary pits grassroots darling State Sen. Jon Tester against the establishment candidate State Auditor John Morrison. National Democratic leaders prefer Morrison mainly because he has won statewide and is therefore viewed as more electable.
But the Democratic base prefers Tester, who is an organic farmer and a man from more humble roots. He came out against Samuel Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court and has spoken out against the Bush administration's tolerance of torture. He also supports focusing America's Iraq policy on bringing U.S. troops home - though he has stopped short of supporting immediate withdrawal.
Morrison's position on Iraq is - no doubt by design - less clear. But the base prefers Tester for his ordinary manner and his authentic voice. He uses clear and direct language to speak out on issues, a style in line with what the base yearns for and what the Democrats may need to connect with the American people.
These three races are just a few of the primary battles in which the activist base is pressing the Democratic leadership to go all in and fight to win rather than try to eke out victories on the margins with safe, establishment-friendly candidates - a strategy that has failed to help boost Democrats in recent elections.
Republican Vulnerability
This year, the stakes are higher because the prospects for Democratic gains are real.
On paper, 2006 should be a year when Republicans are on the defensive. They must campaign against a backdrop of embarrassing political missteps and scandals - including the deteriorating situation in Iraq, the Katrina debacle, the Abramoff scandal and the Dubai ports debate.
Republicans also face other historical disadvantages - including traditionally bad electoral results for the sixth year of a party's presidential term. Plus, they've been in power for more than 10 years and may face a natural fatigue factor among their core supporters. At the same time, Democrats should be hungrier for victory.
And, as these factors pile up, there are early signals that the Dems are set up for some gains almost no matter what they do.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
