As Colin McEnroe once again so sharply points out, the faltering Lieberman campaign erred greatly in thinking their main obstacle was Joe's "blogger problem" when in fact it was always his "Connecticut problem":

The haplessness of this Lieberman operation has been an x-factor for which no one else was really prepared. I still kind of expect him to eke out a victory in the primary, but I would not be surprised if he loses. No one, at this point, would be terribly surprised. If it is true that success has many parents and failure is an orphan, the Lieberman campaign may become a kind of a Wild Boy of Aveyron or Kaspar Hauser, a creature of no parentage at all. The day may come when Sherry Brown, Carter Eskew, Roy Occhiogrosso and Lanny Davis all insist they spent the summer of 2006 in the south of France.

How did this happen? I find myself wondering if the Lieberman inner circle and Joe himself went from underestimating the blogs to over-reacting to them....

I think the Lieberman retinue has been collectively freaked out by the way their internet opponents express displeasure. I think that has kicked them all into a very paranoid mode. Paranoid people make bad decisions.

You could see it in the ridiculous "bear cub" ad, you can read it in the blog-bashing statements of right-wing Lieberman surrogates like Marshall Wittmann and Sean Hannity - they've been irrational in fighting the wrong battles, and they've been losing them. They haven't addressed the real reasons for Lieberman's weakness, minor things like being wrong on the issues and MIA in the state for years.

Joe is weak because of Joe. Or as one Connecticut voter recently put it, "Sen. Lieberman changed my feelings about Sen. Lieberman." On "blogosphere day," it's a good point to keep in mind.