...had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War.

Lieberman saying that he wants the Iraq War to end (wihout saying we should pull out our troops) may work for him, too.

 Lieberman's lying. It's what Republicans do.

 I think Ned can effectively hammer home the hold-them-accountable point. I can't see Lieberman having any credible response to that.

 Unless he lies. Which he's very good at.

I had hoped that beating Lieberman would be a springboard for helping other good Democrats challenge bad ones in the remaining primaries. But I guess that will have to wait until 2008 or 10. All beating lieberman has turned out to be is a springboard for challenging Lieberman again.

Too bad. Reform at a snail's pace is better than none at all, but the slower it goes, the easier it will be for entrenched power and corruption to outflank and thwart it.

and say that Lieberman has, as his tenure dragged on, made more and more of a career out of finding ways to bring his positions more in sync with Bush, based on the now debunked theory that the key to political success and longevity is to 'hug' the opposition to attract the swing voters.  

Even more than a willingness to hold the people in charge accountable, Lieberman lacks the basic moral outlook that defines a Democrat:   a commitment to not intentionally morph into a Republican for political gain.

That is really a big part of the problem.  We have a Senator who has invested so much time in taking up positions that allow him to pass as a Republican, that he doesn't look like a Democrat to anyone with a moral foundation.  

And to Republicans, he doesn't look like one of them either, but is more of a door flung wide open to allow them to attack.  Like that kid at the party who is so desperate to be liked that he volunteers to take the blame for destroying the house--even though he didn't have one drink all night.

So, in Lamont we have the re-emergence of a principled leader, whereas in Lieberman we see the full decay of vulgar incumbency.

 We're going to have a real debate on Iraq policy now. We've never really had one, at least publicly -- every politician who's tried to make one happen has been marginalized by the media in some way. But now Ned Lamont can come out and question Bush/Lieberman on Iraq in a direct, clear, and assertive manner. He can say that BushCo doctored the intel. He can say that Bush has no exit strategy. He can say that there are many unanswered questions regarding the buildup and conduct of the war that only a full accountability investigation will answer -- and that Lieberman, being complicit, is not the man who will launch these investigations. He can say that Democrats HAVE presented rational plans to get out of Iraq (Murtha), and that Joe has shot them down. He can bring up the body armor, the mistreatment of veterans, the civil war. He can bring up the Constitutional violations of BushCo. He can ask the obvious question nobody ever asks -- What, exactly, is the definition of "victory" in Iraq? Because he has no history in this matter, and because he has a REAL interest in getting us out of that clusterfuck, he can let it rip.

 Joe HAS to be mealymouthed about Iraq. He would have no credibility by suddenly deciding to endorse an exit plan, and no popularity if he sticks with a stay-the-course message.

 Lamont's got a huge edge on the issue. It's up to his campaign to ensure that the message goes out effectively.

Look, the message from the Democrats to voters looking at the republican (and CFL) message is to say, very clearly, "Their plan is to keep American troops in Iraq forever."

Make them deny that. Make them justify the permanent bases.  Make them come clean.

Is there one being done at all?

How is the Lamont team planning to counter these charges?  I feel like we've heard so much about their actions, and now, not that much.

Now that Lieberman has had his few days to sulk, which has only made him nastier and more self righteous, will Dodd finally get on his ass about dropping out?  Will Reid actually get tough on Lieberman and any Dem who supports him?

"new politics of unity and purpose" = unify around my stated purpose, maggots.

How condescending.  I am hardly the most liberal poster on this board - probably some of you would be annoyed at the moderate economic positions of this libertarian-leaning liberal - yet I cannot look at this man as anything but a bought tramp.  Bought by a convenient combination of GOP co-opters, corporate donations and his own insufferable sense of entitlement to that Senate seat.

Lieberman will stay in the race long after it's clear to everybody else on the planet that he's toast. At the 11th hour, if he's behind by 15 or more points, he might drop out to avoid the humiliation of losing to Ned Lamont TWICE.

But, he's very weak now because he doesn't have a natural base of support. As a Democrat thousands of democrats would hold their nose and vote for him, out of party loyalty or because the alternative is worse. But, he's not a Democrat OR Republican now. The strategy NORMALLY open to politicians of securing the base early, then reaching out to uncommitted voters in the middle isn't available to Lieberman. Lamont can move more to the center and still keep the loyalty of the party left, but Lieberman can't move to the right without losing moderate support. And he can't gain Republican support without parroting their unpopular positions.

But, he'll have PLENTY of money to throw at this race. All the corporate lobbyists who have been lining his pockets in return for Congressional favors for the last 18 years will do anything to keep him in power.

All Lamont has to do is keep hammering away and the notion of "victory" in Iraq. What does that mean? Accuse Lieberman of wanting permanent military bases, accuse him supporting Bush's plan to keep troops in Iraq until Jan. 2009. "Do you want American troops to stay fighting in Iraq until 2009? If so, then vote Lieberman."

Simple message. Stay the course or change. The more Lieberman tacks right, the less chance he has of winning over a majority. His only hope is to build a coalition in the middle of both parties. But, you can't do that when the electorate is polarized between Bush loving and Bush-hatred, "stay the course" v. "change course."

It's a ZERO-SUM GAME Joe! And you've dealt yourself a losing hand!

Complete with phone number (Press #2 for Senator Lieberman)

I wanted to leave a message asking Lieberman when he'd resign his Committee posts, now that he was running against a Democrat, but the mailbox was full.

And there's a typo in the thank you mail that you get when you register for his email list. Still trying to do things on the cheap, I guess.

    Lieberman is a lickspittle for the corporatocracy that runs America.  As America's population blasted towards 300 million, democracy has been supplanted by corporatocracy.  Democracy proved an inadequate means for regulating such a huge mass of people and the commerce they create.  

    Corporatocracy emerged as a means to manage the lives and business of an overpopulated America.  The corporatocracy comprises all three branches of government; the governmental bureaucracy at local,county, state, and federal levels; the major political parties; all the corporations including big pharm, big ag, the media, and big banking; and the military and the corporations that serve them.  

   In the corporatocratic world, individual people do not matter.  Diebold can strip away the citizens' power to elect a president, and the Supreme Court will support the corporation against the citizen, because the Supreme Court is committed to maintaining the corporatocracy.  

  In the corporatocratic world, the corporations can poison individual citizens with lead or mercury or dioxin with the support of the Supreme Court and the EPA and the encouoragement of the Executive Branch, because the lives of individual citizens are meaningless to the corporations and because the corporations are not susceptible to mercury or lead or dioxin poisoning.  

    I encourage all readers to stop focusing on the Liebermans or the Clintons on the political playing field.  We need a new vision for America in which the power of the corporatocracy is curtailed and we citizens take our country back.  We need politicians who are unaffiliated with either party or with any component of the corporatocracy.  This is the message I want to hear from persons running for office.    
   

This is perhaps the best post I have read from Matt on the political dynamics of voting for change and just how earth-shattering the Lamont win really was.

The post could have been shorter, but it's brilliant:  Stoller hit the nail on the head regarding the paradox of running challenger campaigns.  If only the Kerry people understood this.  I have a feeling that more undecideds than people think broke for Bush at the end because of comfort.  This is the opposite of what people like Dick Morris cite as the conventional wisdom of campaigns 101:  that undecideds (if they vote at all) tend to break AWAY from the incumbent.  Sometimes, that's not the case.  It wasn't the case with Lamont/Lieberman, and I don't think it was the case in 2004.

Where the hell did Lieberman get this game analogy?  

"We just finished the first half, and the Lamont team is ahead . . ."

and now this stuff about round two.

Doesn't he understand that it's not a game?  It's a tournament and he lost in the first round.

I am new to your site. After reading this new article  Lieberman just put out. I have a question. Is this the same Lieberman that I have been watching on FOX news and reading about in the WASHINGTON POST. Could there be two Lieberman. This Lieberman is  a very different person I have never read or seen before.