It would have been unthinkable a few years ago, but Joe Lieberman may be about to lose the primary race for his party’s nomination in Connecticut. After a few truly grim polls comes the news that his campaign is scaling way back on its get-out-the-vote effort:

But in the waning hours of the most closely watched Democratic primary in the nation, Mr. Lieberman, a three-term incumbent, appears to be ceding some tactical ground to his opponent in favor of running new advertisements emphasizing his message that voters should see him for more than his vote to authorize the war in Iraq.

People affiliated with the campaign said it had dropped plans for a far-reaching – and expensive – get-out-the-vote effort that would have added as many as 4,000 new workers and volunteers to the campaign in its final days.

Canadian parliamentary campaigns are, of course, different from American Senate campaigns. (The role of broadcast advertising in individual races is a case in point.) But in a Canadian race, bailing on vote-pulling is an act of desperation. It usually means that you can’t trust your canvassing results. You’ve lost enough erstwhile supporters that you no longer know whether the voter you’re driving to the polling station is voting for your candidate, or for your opponent.

Lieberman’s supporters are already mourning their man’s impending defeat. Robert Kagan, writing in the Washington Post, says:

If Lieberman loses, it will not even be because he supported the war. Almost every leading Democratic politician and foreign policymaker, and many a liberal columnist, supported the war. Nor will he lose because he opposes withdrawing troops from Iraq this year. Most top Democratic policymakers agree that early withdrawal would be a mistake. Nor, finally, is it because he has been too chummy with President Bush. Lieberman has offered his share of criticism of the administration’s handling of the Iraq war and of many other administration policies.

No, Lieberman’s sin is of a different order. Lieberman stands condemned today because he didn’t recant. He didn’t say he was wrong.

That’s too kind an assessment by far. Lieberman’s “share of criticism” came very late in the came, and after he condemned criticism of President Bush as inappropriate during wartime – a stance that helped fuel the fires of political intolerance at the very time that voices of dissent were needed the most.

Yes, other Democratic politicians disagreed with more liberal voices in the party and in the public – but they didn’t try to silence those voices and impugn their patriotism. That was the action that tied Lieberman indelibly to Bush: insisting the man must not be questioned. And as it turned out, on every front – international relations, civil liberties, economics, ethics, the environment, jobs, taxes, trade and many more – questioning Bush was exactly what the public good required.

It isn’t honesty that’s sinking the Republicans’ favourite Democrat. It was that lack of respect for the best, most democratic traditions of American politics that means Joe Lieberman can’t break away from George Bush’s clammy embrace… and that he will be unable to carry the Democratic standard in the November campaign.