I noticed that, too. I assume that the "him" is Lieberman, unless there's something we don't know about Lamont.

But what's up with the Lieberman ad? I don't want to see that crap here or elsewhere. It's really bizarre to see that petulant, grandiose, self-important gasbag becoming "Sweet Ol' Joe" for the cameras.

One would assume that Stoller intended that sentence to be read such that every "he" and "him" refers to Lieberman, but it reads as if Stoller is saying that Lamont pushed himself dramatically to the left and then lied about the war.

Yeah, but the caucus would go apeshit over free seniority.  Look, I love Lamont, but it would be absurd to give him a committee chair.

what could a Democrat possibly find appealing about Joe Lieberman?

The only thing dumber than the average Democrat is a smart Republican. :-)

Rote vote gets you the like of Joe Lieberman - and, glory be, it might yet get rid of the demon called Holy Joe.

When the Democratic Party power brokers cast out an earlier anti-war crusader in Eugene McCarthy, it led to a vast decline in the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party had been so dominant there was widespread speculation that Republicans were on their way to going the way of the Whig. Instead the Democrats became the despised minority party.

The decay of the Democratic Party found its penultimate expression in the election of Bill Clinton, who shucked off any real concern for the Democratic Party's historic base voters.  If you weren't at least middle class, you weren't wanted or needed.  If you were poor or disabled or black or brown, you got the short end of the stick and could damn well love it or lump it.  (Though Bill Clinton is often hailed by the sadly misguided as the country's first "black president," is there any mistaking the notion that the "suffering middle class" excludes African-Americans despite their rising economic status?) The lower classes were empowered to care for themselves while the business of government was to care for the upper half.

The most welcome sign of the cleansing of the soul of the Democratic Party to this unbowed liberal can be found in the speeches of Jim Webb, of all people.  Maybe Webb has paid homage to the now trite "suffering middle class" but I have not heard it.

A new day is breaking upon us.  If an ugly artifact from the past like Joe Lieberman yet survives, he will nevertheless continue to be marginalized with his Republican friends.

Best,  Terry

Because he doesn't want Liberman to win in a blowout.

As Atrios would say, this has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

You hit the nail on the head. Rahm and the DC boys&girls did not want to run on the Iraq FUBAR. Ned had the courage and showed how it could be done. Unfortunately there are 35% of the Dems in CT that will still hang with the Liberliar. That's such a shame. At the end CT will get a senator they want and deserve.

Yeah, but c'mon...who would ever expect that asshole to run a second race as an independent after getting bounced out of the primary? It's not exactly something that's in the Candidate's Playbook. Re-positioning yourself agaist a newly independent challenger would be difficult for any candidate, and it was far more difficult for a political rookie.

Yeah, Ned made mistakes, but so does every candidate. None of it should've mattered, because he should've been running against Schlesinger only. If Joe's D.C. frat buddies had been at all serious about pressuring him to leave the race, we might not be in this situation today.

Still, if every state without a sore-loser law doesn't pass one after this, then they're freaking crazy.

Really I think it's quite unfortunate, because I think all of this excessive (and occasionally evidence-defying) optimism in the end may wind up eclipsing what's really important about the Lieberman-Lamont race. Lamont's primary victory, and the fact that he's getting as close as he is in the general, have been stunning achievements, and are extremely inspirational because they demonstrate primaries can be used to knock out a crappy incumbent (or, at least, they can as long as you are in a state with a sore-loser law). But I worry this will be forgotten because certain people have gotten the hopes surrounding the Lamont-Lieberman race up so unreasonably high that anything less than a win for Lamont will be seen as a setback for the "netroots" that was so instrumental in getting him as far as he did.

I do think Lamont definitely has a chance at winning this one, even still, I do still think this is one of the most interesting races in this year's entire election, and obviously polls can, do, and will make mistakes. But the fact remains that the polls so far are only indicating a Lieberman win, and trying to wish that away gets us no closer to fixing it.

* Republican GOTV minus Democratic GOTV <=2 points

* Democratic GOTV minus Zero GOTV (Lieberman) = 4 points

It was so preposterous I didn't even want to comment directly. That 4 points in real numbers is tens of thousands of votes in statewide senate race. I read many days ago that Lieberman borrowed Bloomberg's GOTV operation and plans 2800 shifts in 700 polling sites, so the zero isn't accurate in itself.

I don't think this race is anyone's fault, if Lamont loses. Breeders Cup day is Saturday. I don't know a handicapper on this planet who mistakes the Sprint or turf races for the Classic. Completely different dynamic. Anyone who proposed one of the sprint favorites could step up and challenge Bernardini or Lava Man at 1 1/4 miles would be laughed out of the room.

In a primary you can have a late tsunami since it's carrying likeminded people. In a general election the numbers are ideologically braced. It reminds me of the nonsense in 2004, when Kerry was described as a late closer. Yeah, when he's running in a statewide race favorable to his partisanship. How the hell does that equate to nationally, in an electorate that does not tilt 39% liberal and 16% conservative, which is the Massachusetts breakdown?

When late funded and late surging candidates prevail in a general election, it's inevitably in a state or district with the partisanship in their favor, a glorified primary. Lamont could easily come from behind against a Schlesinger or another Republican head-to-head in a state like Connecticut. But Lieberman swiping the 30-35% of the Democratic vote has always been the damn problem. Those are the votes a wave would ordinarily catch, the people who lean toward your party but are the least loyal.

WHen you beat a 3 term incumbent who hasnt been involved in a sex or corruption scandal, you need all segments to get together to oust the incumbent. Lamont made some mistakes after the primary. But most candidates make mistakes. If a candidate deserves to lose an election because of a less than perfect campaign, then most people should lose elections including Lieberman who has lost his cool one too many times. What Lamont needed was the party machinery to rally the democratic leaning voters who were still loyal to Lieberman because Lieberman kept bragging that he wasnt going to lose any seniority.

Well until we see the final election results we won't know whether your predictions are accurate. But both sides' internal polls are showing the race under 10 points and closing fast. Even the notorious Quinnipiac showed the race closing by 5 points (from 17 to 12).

I don't know whether Ned will win but I think it will be very close for all the reasons you have dismissed.

That post did not deserved to be troll rated.  It may be hard for some to follow but it's not an invalid point of view.   As to whether it's true or not, we'll find out in, oh, about 110 hours.

Certainly Lamont taking time off after the primary didn't help...reminds me of Dukakis in 1988.  And aside from consolidating Democratic votes, I haven't seen that he's done a good job for most of his campaign addressing independents, which are huge in Connecticut.  

Lieberman has NO presence in CT. The only thing between him and reality are these polls - trending in Ned's favor, btw.

All polls are not equal - whether in TN or VA or CT. Lamont has been able to get out incredible numbers of supports at all events, campaign tours, debates and during the primary. Nothing even approximating Ned's appeal is visible in the Lieberman camp. Rain or shine, day or night the Lamont campaign is energized and in huge numbers. Not so with Lieberman - it's all poll numbers - leading one to think: there's no there there, behind the curtain of polls.

The polls are telling Lieberman to, once again, "stay the course". We've heard it and its a losing proposition for Iraq and for his run.

This poll thing get's beaten up on every blog with the same scenarios played out. There is very good reason for Lamont and his supporters to be very hopeful and Lieberman to be very wary.

Colin's a radio guy, actually.  The press has been in the tank for Lieberman this whole race, though that's not really surprising.

Yes, their management is incredibly dense. The Tribune Corp.  They also own the local FOX affiliate in Hartford.

Like he's gonna care from the comfort of his DC digs! Liberliar will always be the same.

It's a great ad and it cuts to the chase: do you want the status quo or do you want change?