I've been looking for a few minutes, trying to pick out an approrpriate sentence to blockquote and say, "damn, that was well said." But then I figured there was no need to blockquote the entire post, since it is right above this comment.

Tim
 

It's really simple what Lieberman's people are trying to do; they want to be first to tell the voters about Ned Lamont.

It doesn't really matter WHAT negative thing they say about Lamont, but whatever they say will be the first impression those voters have about him. Then, as they hear Ned's name mentioned more often in the coming weeks, they'll associate it with the negative statement.

The Lamont crew needs to consider a saturation campaign to introduce Ned and his views to the voters. The Hillsman commercials are somewhat effective in that regard, but they really need to identify specific issues that Joe champions, and how Ned differs from him.

Then Lieberman's chickenshit ads will only prove to show how desparate he is.

But if I'd never heard of Lamont, and suddenly he's the guy who loves asbestos, that might stick in my mind and be tough to dislodge.
 

Yeah, you're right of course, but to be so obvious about it, so transparent...I don't know, I just expected something ..tricky, something clever. As when they tried to label Ned as the angry candidate one gets the impression they're just grasping at anything, trying to see what'll work against this guy, and bereft of any new ideas or seeming political insight they resort to crap like this. I expected negative. I didn't expect "lame".
 

Joe's doing what he does best - attacking other Democrats. They've decided that they need to go negative early and often. A sign that they've nothing else in their playbook. These attacks will probably get worse, count on it. Lieberman has money to spend and nothing else to say.
 

Lamont need to get serious about this thing. The campaign needs to put up or get drown in negative ads. This is just the tip of the negative ad iceberg.
 

so where/when exactly did Lamont cast these votes? I thought he hadn't held office before. Are these just complete lies or is there some basis to this?
 

Let's be realistic here, Lamont's ads have been negative from the begining.
 

Anonymous, how do you figure that? Lamont is challenging Lieberman on one of the most pivotal issues concerning this country today. If we don't address that issue, then people won't wake up. We didn't do character attacks, we questioned Sen. Lieberman's decision on a crucial policy that costs thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi lives and American lives.

If you Lieberman folks think that is negative, then that's just showing nothing but a whiny attitude towards a strong and growing Ned constituency.

Line B = Where the Real Democrats are.
 

anon 10:29: Which ads are you talking about? Ned has aired only three ads, and none have featured anything close to the misleading attacks in this one.

Wrog- These votes all date back to Lamont's stint as a selectman in Greenwich in the late 80's/early 90s, and are all being misrepresented. For instance, the asbestos funding was a minor part of a much larger $40+ million budget package. Ned voted against the entire budget because he thought it was fiscally irresponsible. The other charges are similarly misleading.

Joe is using GOP tactics to smear Lamont here, tactics he once disavowed. It's wrong, and Joe knows it.