Helen Ubiñas writes an absolutely blistering column in today's Courant, busting Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith on his characterization on Lamont as "angry." After hearing Smith's description and reading Lamont's actual words, which amounted to tame criticisms, Ubiñas called Smith to get specifics on the "angry" charges of Lamont. Here's what followed:

Curious about these misrepresentations, I called Lieberman's campaign manager and asked for specifics.

How much time do you have? Sean Smith asked.

All the time he needed, which turned out not to be much.

After two conversations and a night to think about it, Smith sent me a seven-page document titled "What Ned Said."

"A" for effort, but it was pretty unconvincing. I'll spare you the details; here's the digest: Ned Lamont is doing what every challenger going after an incumbent does. He's highlighting the votes, quotes, news items and other tidbits that support his contention that the guy's gotta go. It's called politics.

Ubiñas then analyzes Smith's quandary, which she argues is due entirely to a strategic choice to complain:

Smith says Lieberman's campaign has been put in a corner: If they ignore Lamont's digs, Lieberman gets accused of being out of touch. If they engage, Smith said, he's accused of overreacting.

But the Lieberman campaign isn't engaging, it's whining. And there's another way to counter Lamont.

What strikes me about Lieberman's thin skin is how unnecessary it all is. He's a decent guy with a good record in many areas - someone who can hold his own in any debate about Democratic goals and values.

But unless his campaign strategy is to position himself as a coddled incumbent with an overgrown sense of entitlement, he ought to do just that.

Ouch.