Along with CTKeith and DeanFan84, I had the chance to be on RadioNation on Air America last night to talk briefly about the CT-SEN race. One of the questions Laura Flanders posed was about what Lieberman was trying to accomplish with his recent back-and-forth plays for both Democrats (calling for Rumfseld's resignation, committing to stay in the caucus) and Republicans (hiring GOP operatives, talking to Rove).

I responded as I have recently to others - that I have truly given up on trying to divine any grand strategy behind the Lieberman campaign. They don't seem to have one. Decisions like this seem to be made on the spur of the moment, probably due to Joe's mood that day as much as anything else. Their campaign did absolutely everything they could to lose the primary, and they're now pretty much doing the same in the general. It's reflective of Lieberman's own personal frantic search for any way to keep his job. People make bad decisions when they're angry, bitter, and stressed, and he has never dealt well with losing.

Matt Browner-Hamlin has some similar thoughts:

I see Lieberman’s leftward tack as yet another fundamental miscalculation by him and his advisors as to how he can best increase his chances of winning the CT for Lieberman Party’s first seat in the senate. The left is gone, we have our candidate. We’re emotionally unavailable and most Dems are only becoming more attached to Ned. Lieberman cannot win by moving to the left, only to the right. Clearly he’s under the delusion that there is a space for him within the Democratic Party. If he wants to hold on to that notion, fine by me - it will probably cost him the election (again).

The only good reason he might have for "tacking left" are the recent comments of the likes of John Edwards, John Kerry, and unnamed sources for articles that claim major figures in the national party are getting more than a little fed up with being forced to deal with Lieberman's Cheneyist rhetoric and having to overcome his GOP GOTV operation to win the three House seats. He's got to keep these national figures at least somewhat happy, because he needs them to they stay as quiet as possible.

This is still looking like a replay of his primary campaign, where he had every advantage in the world and screwed up every major strategic decision - but this time with more ego-driven entitlement, more anger-driven shunning of advice, and with the scarlet letter of being a loser now indelibly marked on him.

Update: Regarding Rumsfeld, this blogger debunks Joe's claim yesterday that he called for his resignation "three years ago":

So, for the record, the bidding looks like this. Way back in October of 2003, Lieberman said if he were the guy in the Oval Office he'd can Rummy (different than calling on Bush to do so, of course, which is more forceful, and not in keeping with the deferential war time mores we're admonished to follow). Then, after the massive debacle of Abu Ghraib, some seven months after this interview, Lieberman sees it fit to pen an op-ed in the WSJ urging Rummy not be sacked--lest we "delight foreign and domestic opponents". And now fast-forward to these heady times rife with challenges from the likes of Ned Lamont, and it's OK again, I guess, to risk delighting our foreign foes with calls for Rummy to go. Rather on the lame side, I'm afraid.