It's going to come down to the ground game and GOTV. Can't put it any simpler.

There have been plenty of other races where a challenger trailed an incumbent by about the same margin at this stage and come back to win--we all remember Saxby Chambliss against Max Cleland (ouch!), Whitman against Florio in NJ, etc.

This one is way within reach.

Lamont needs to fire his media consultants.  He's throwing money away on cutesy-poo stuff beloved by netroots but that has no effect on the race.

Lamont needs a straightforward spot.  Straight into camera, no cutaways, no props.

"Joe Lieberman and I believe a lot of the same things.  We're both for education, we both believe you need affordable health care, and we'd both like to see more jobs come to Connecticut.

In fact there's really only one major difference between us.  Joe won't stand up to George W. Bush.  I will.

Again and again, Joe Lieberman has said yes to George W. Bush.  He's unwilling or unable to say no.  If you re-elect Joe, he'll go right on saying yes.  

Well, I'm not afraid to say no to George W. Bush.  

I'm Ned Lamont and I approved this message because we need someone with the courage to say no to George W. Bush."

Lamont has exactly one thing that differentiates him.  It's a big thing.  He needs to stay on that message and stop being clever.  "I'll stand up to George W. Bush, and Joe Lieberman won't."

I don't know if anything can save Lamont, but it's all he's got so he should be working it.

In an effort to support the Senate campaigns of several Democratic candidates, I regularly visit those of Harold Ford, Jr, Ned Lamont, Jon Tester and Jim Webb. Compared to Ford's website, Lamont's is dull and amateurish. Probably there's no hope of jazzing that up in the coming weeks?

Lamont's static homepage puts recent news at the bottom, not up at the top where it can be seen immediately. On Harold's homepage, you see the most recent press accounts, great graphics, the current ad, the five most recent ads, and a supporter's endorsement on opening the page. Whoever is responsible for this arrangement did a great job, in my opinion.

For some reason, we have to access the adjunct "Cup of Joe" for breaking news for the Lamont campaign.

I agree with the sentiment that it's not just enough to show up to a fight (which is what Lamont seems to have done) he needs to start showing up to win (which to me means beating Lieberman into a pulp). Ditto on enough with the cutesy ads.

Lieberman is not getting dinged on anything but torture. Not a single major news outlet in CT is picking up on his support for Hastart, and they don't write about Iraq anymore. In the mean time, Lamont is getting shelled by the Hartford Courant with a giant front-page article proclaiming "Lamont Still The Novice". Read it, it has some interesting quotes from "teenage boy". It plays right into the Lieberman talking points that "nobody knows what Sen. Lamont will be like" and "Lamont has no experience".

  I fully understand. If they alienate Lieberman, he might start doing things like providing cover for Republican scandals and misdeeds, breaking with Democrats on important votes, berating Democrats on national TV when they don't kowtow to Republicans, and overall stabbing the party in the back at every opportunity.

 I agree. Better be nice to him. It would suck if he started acting that way.  

 Snark aside, what does it tell you about a politician's "core values" if he'll change his vote on any issue because the right people didn't stroke him enough? And why are the national Democrats too blind to see this?

Bobby McGee,

Yeah, Lamont's just in trouble.  And, lets face it, we can try and put lipstick on this pig, hope he'll pick up the pace, but it's going to be pretty tough.  When he went on vacation after the primary victory, let Joe run the papers for two weeks, he basically nuetered his momentum.  Now he's on his knees, fighting a rear guard action.  Unless he really pulls a great upset in the debates, he's toast.  

I got called a concern troll at Atrios's place last night for bringing that stuff up, but it's true.  In the end, we're going to have to start thinking about what we want Senate leaders to do once Joe's in there acting like a righteous asshole.  Indeed, I think it's important to start thinking about that now.  

The fact is if the Dem leadership strongly supported Lamont, then there would be no need for them to worry about lieberman because his chances of winning would have been much smaller. Clinton musters passion only when it comes to defending his personal legacy. He laid Lamont out to dry when he told Larry King that we couldn;t lose evenf if Lieberman won. Geez, thanks for that endorsement of Lamont. THe party doesnt look at the big picture. They were confused why people would vote for Nader in 2000 because they EXPECTED that we vote for the lesser of two evils. They pulled the same shit in 2004. When are they going to learn?

It is this lack of principle that actually let the republicans have a bigger base turnout in many elections. Thanks to the many repub blunders, dems have a great chance of bettering the repubs in the base turnout this time.

It's one thing to be pragmatic. But to let Lieberman continually side with repubs since the primaries and take cheap shots at quite a few of the dem leaders, and these guys dont hit back, is  it any wonder why people like me have  a hard time identifying as anything but independent? I have a hard time looking at many dem leaders with any kind of respect. I feel like spitting on them.

I want to see some fucking spine and principle. We need more Wes Clarks.