A report from the Ned Lamont campaign meeting this morning in New Haven (athough spazeboy at My Left Nutmeg and ctblogger at Connecticut Blog have beaten me to the punch):

First, the bullet points that everyone needs to know, followed by some impressions, some more photos, and a detailed report:

• The official announcement of the campaign will be Monday, March 13th at 3pm (that's one week away) at the Old State House in Hartford. This will be a huge event with lots of press, and the campaign absolutely needs all the bodies they can get there to show up for it. They want people overflowing out of the room and down the steps of the building. They want supporters bursting out of the ceiling and through the rooftop. They want crowds. Bring family, friends, and neighbors. They also need volunteers to help coordinate both in anticipation of the event and for the day itself. This entire campaign is based on turnout and grassroots enthusiasm, and they need both in full force for the official announcement. If you can possibly be there, be there.


• The campaign is pursuing a dual-pronged strategy towards getting on the ballot in November. To get on the ballot, Lamont needs either 15% of the vote of the delegates attending the state convention on May 20th or a number of signatures on petition drives. They are wisely pursuing both - they want as strong a showing as possible with the delegates (51% would be better than 15%) and tens of thousands of signatures on petitions. There will be another big campaign strategy meeting on April 22nd to coordinate the petition drive. Signatures can be gathered beginning April 26th until May 19th.


• The campaign is conducting an extensive voter history project to identify voters to mobilize for the August 8th primary. Voter information around the state is spotty at best and the campaign needs volunteers to go to town halls and collect data, sometimes transcribing by hand.


• The online outreach at NedLamont.com will soon include a "families, friends, and neighbors" program. Keep an eye on the campaign website.


• March 29th, the day before the Democratic Party's JJB Dinner, will be a statewide Ned Lamont visibility day. This will be grassroots stuff, standing with signs at rush hour. It's all about getting the word out.


• Absentee ballots will be available beginning July 18th. If you are unafilliated with a party, you can change your registration to Democratic immediately. But if you are a registered Republican, the switch will take 90 days to become official. (Hopefully Joe's GOP supporters planning on voting for him on August 8th aren't aware of this last fact, although seeing Lieberman scrounge for GOP votes in a Democratic primary would be quite the story).

Much more after the jump:



It was great to finally meet Ned himself, Aldon, ctblogger, spazeboy, and others who until now I had only known through the blogosphere.

My first impression was of an energy surrounding this campaign not stemming from anger towards Lieberman (although there is obviously a lot of that), but based around the hope that grassroots politics can force a more democratic, representative, and responsive electoral process in the state of Connecticut. And that, in the end, the Democratic Senate candidate from Connecticut will be someone of whom all Democrats in the state can be proud. There's an optimistic and forward-looking momentum here that I can only hope will increase.

To the event itself, which started off with campaign manager Tom Swan outlining the strategy of the campaign and the agenda of the meeting. His main points:

• this will be a grassrots, particpatory campaign based not only on Iraq, but on issues like global warming, equality, healthcare, a woman's right to choose, ethics in government, etc.


• Lieberman and his friends have been putting a lot of pressure on Connecticut political leaders, on many friends and political players throughout the state, including Democratic candidates like Chris Murphy, Diane Farrell, and Joe Courtney. With Lamont as the candidate, the GOP will no longer be able to hide behind Joe Lieberman on Iraq and other issues (I think he's talking to you, Chris Shays).


• Contrary to what Lieberman is saying, this campaign won't hurt the party, it's the best thing that could happen to the party. We are going to have this primary in August no matter what Lieberman says.

Next up was a speaker giving details on the official announcement on Monday, March 13th. They're really pushing this as a huge campaign kick-off event. After that, John Murphy spoke about the voter history project which sounds central to their voter mobilization program. Apparently, the only data the state party collects is on general elections, which of course isn't much help with what will be a very low-turnout election like this. The 2004 primary voter list will be helpful, but they need volunteers in all 169 towns to get more data. The campaign sounds on top of this, but they need volunteers to do this thankless legwork.

The meeting then split up into groups by Congressional District. The caucuses for delegates to the state convention will be between March 22nd and 29th depending on the town. Any reigstered Democrat is eligible to vote in their town, so if one wanted to become a delegate, one could possibly attend the caucus and bring a bunch of friends and family, and Ned Lamont might end up with one more vote at the convention. The idea is to have as strong a showing at possible at both the convention and with the petition drive. Some party officials are freaking out about Lamont already - one town Democratic official at the meeting said he received a call from Joe Lieberman's own chief of staff asking "what's up?" with his involvement with Lamont. Discussed fundraisers, events where Lamont can be visible in front of big crowds, writing LTEs.

Tom Swan came back up and discussed fundraising goals and the petition drive, Kim Hynes discussed a whole slew of Ned Lamont events planned for the next few weeks (which I will post here later, and will likely be up at the official site soon as well) and noted that the main campaign office will soon be opening in Meriden. Some participants informed the campaign of upcoming anti-war marches and rallies on the third anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war.

Then Lamont was introduced and spoke for a very short amount of time. Ned gave a rundown of how he spends a typical day on the campaign: reading up on the issues, calling state political officials and local activists, attending meetings and events. He noted how veterans in particular have been supportive of his campaign, saying they'll be with him "every step of the way."

Ned concluded, "the war is wrong, our priorities are wrong, and we don't have a senator who understands that President Bush is wrong."

This is getting fun. Howie Klein absolutely destroys Lieberman at Huffington Post after being challenged on his previous points by "someone formerly affiliated with Lieberman." (Hat tip to ctblogger).

Klein highlights Joe's history of tolerating (if not quietly endorsing) homophobic, bigoted, and racist viewpoints, and just his general smarminess. And boy, does that smarminess run deep.

Meanwhile, over at Klein's blog, Jill Sobule and Steve Barton add their opinions on Lieberman's role in the culture wars (hint... he's been on the wrong side) and sign on to what is starting to look like a "Songwriters For Lamont" PAC.

P.S. An unrelated reminder for those in CT: The campaign meeting for volutneers is tomorrow at 10am in New Haven. I hope to be there and post about it later tomorrow.

A summary and video clip over at CT Blue:

It seems to me that its high time we rock the boat. We go to every single town committee, we can we talk to DFA, we talk to folks like you, we try to get the grassroots energized, we tell them we're going on to a convention on May 20th, and we're gonna show that you can win - you can win not by being Republican light, you can win by being a proud Democrat. From there we go on to a primary on August 8th, it's a hot day in August, we need folks like you to talk to your friends, friends and family, go to our website, this is a grassroots operation, we're gonna need people to get people to the polls on August 8th. That's how we're gonna win and that's how we're gonna send a message 90 days before the midterm election that Democrats are on the march.

Via My Left Nutmeg, Larkspur suggests contacting CT NOW before their March board meeting to thank them for their Feb. 1st press release taking Lieberman to task for his failure to support a filibuster against Alito:

The next board meeting after March's is not til May, so Lamont supporters should petition CT NOW Board via Kathleen Sloan at this meeting to support Ned Lamont's campaign. Some CT NOW members and CT NOW board members are also on Democratic Town Committees and it is the DTC's that help pick delegates to the May conventions. Ned Lamont needs at least 15% of those delegates to force a primary against Lieberman.

Send notes of thanks and encouragement to support Ned Lamont to

Kathleen Sloan, Executive Director of CT NOW
email: ct_now@yahoo.com
phone: 860-524-5978
fax: 860-524-1092
CT NOW web site http://www.ct-now.net (it just got a new face-lift and it’s working now.)

CT NOW conlcuded in their press release that it was "highly unlikely that CT NOW will support Lieberman in his bid for re-election." The press release was titled "LIEBERMAN HAS TURNED HIS BACK ON WOMEN." Let's let them know that Ned Lamont would never do so.

Democrats need to run against Bush in 2006:

39%, 38%, 38%, 36%, 34%.

Five more reasons we need Ned Lamont - not Joe "Bottom Line, I Think Bush Has It Right" Lieberman - on the ticket in November.

Rick Santorum is by far the most vulnerable Republican senator up for re-election in November. Polls in Pennsylvania had him down anywhere from 10-20 points to likely Democatic challenger Bob Casey Jr., and that was before the latest ethics revelations against him. He's obviously feeling the pressure big-time - so much so that, as The Hill reports, he's laughably joining forces with John McCain to introduce lobbying legislation. It works both ways: Santorum hopes that some iota of that Mr. Clean McCain mojo rubs off on him, while McCain hopes to shore up support amongst the Dobsonites in preparation for his 2008 run.

McCain is one thing. But the last thing any Democrat should be doing this election year is helping bail Little Ricky out from his rapidly sinking campaign against the best chance for a Democratic pickup in the nation. But lo and behold, guess which Democratic senator just joined the Santorum desperation tour? Oh, come on, you know who it is:

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs chairwoman, Republican Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), and Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), the ranking Democrat, plan to offer a substitute amendment that would parallel several provisions of the McCain bill but also establish an Office of Public Integrity within Congress....

Indeed, Santorum has been working with colleagues from across the ideological spectrum of late.

As he boarded a subway car beneath the Capitol yesterday, Santorum could be heard urging Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to "let Joe offer his amendment."

It was not clear to which amendment Santorum was referring or whether the amendment would be offered in committee or on the floor.

(Hat tip to Timothy J at Daily Kos.)

Update: I do realize that this one overheard quote is quite vague. But while it might not be 100% clear that Lieberman is working with Santorum on this, it would certainly fit a long pattern of Joe's "bipartisan" tendencies leading to Democrats getting screwed over. (Remember Joe's mishandling of the Homeland Security Dept. legislation before the 2002 midterms? Max Cleland does.) So I think it's a safe bet that there's something more than Santorum's goodwill towards Lieberman at play here.

• Ari Melber in The Forward hits the nail on the head in a commentary highlighting the non-ideological basis for taking on Lieberman:
  

  The fallout between the Connecticut senator and the Democratic base illustrates a broader debate that has gripped the party since the most recent presidential election.
  
  The debate has little to do with ideology. It is, first and foremost, about leadership.
  
  Many activists believe that Lieberman's conciliatory approach undercuts the party's unity, consistency and confrontational posture, all of which are essential for an effective opposition party. They resent his style more than they resent his voting record, which is not very different from those of many popular Democrats....
  
  If Democratic leaders listened to this insight, they would understand that many of their supporters yearn for confrontational leadership and unwavering allegiance to the party - reasonable requests that do not require major ideological shifts.



• The Yale Daily News prints a rebuttal piece to a very pro-Lamont column a few days ago, concluding:
  

  If we push Senator Lieberman out of the party, we are exactly what we accuse Republicans of being: close-minded. The day we become that is the day we've lost our way, and our souls.

  
  No one's pushing Joe out of the party. Giving Democratic voters the choice to accept or reject Lieberman for the first time in 36 years is called "democracy." Conversely, Joe seems to be the one pushing himself out of the party. As the previous link notes, this is not about ideological purity, it's about leadership.


• Amazing how the same story can inspire such diametrically opposed headlines: "Congressman in G.O.P. Endorses Lieberman" vs. "Lieberman won't accept endorsement from Shays."


• Howie Klein and Rickie Lee Jones lambaste Lieberman for his history of moral grandstanding and advocating censorship at Down With Tyranny. Seems like the music industry is solidly behind Ned Lamont... for better or for worse.


• Add George Will to the growing list of conservative Republicans who have been more critical of George Bush on Iraq than Joe Lieberman has.


• Was anyone at the DFA event last night in Groton? Anyone planning on going to the Fourth Congressional District office opening in Norwalk tonight? (It has been postponed until Monday due to the snow.) Anything else Nedly going on? Use this as an open thread to comment.

(Image of Lieberman and Shays via this WTNH report last night.)

Just came across this brand new Democracy Corps memo (pdf) via Political Wire. As Taegan puts it, you can really sense the "almost giddy" feeling of Carville and Greenberg as they come to an essential conclusion about the 2006 midterm elections:

....the starting point is George Bush, who every day is nationalizing this election on our terms. Other polls show breathtaking drops on job approval, but even more so for specific areas, like the war on terrorism and Iraq. He was already low on the economy. In this survey, he hits historic lows on the country's direction and specifically, on changing Bush's direction. With his personal approval hitting new lows here, we very much want 2006 to be about Bush's stewardship for the country. For sure, as we saw this past week, the Republicans will seek to make this about something else.

A similar point was made today by dreaminonempty at Daily Kos in a great graphic and statistical analysis of just how much potential there is for Bush to become a serious anchor around the necks of GOP congressional candidates this year.

You can feel it in the air - Bush is slowly becoming perhaps irrecoverably toxic, even to Republicans. And Iraq isn't going away, the ports controversy isn't going away, even Katrina doesn't seem to be going away. A dozen or more Republicans in Congress are considering retirement. Carville and Greenberg argue that this the time is ripe for Democrats to present an alternative agenda:

The Democrats could watch these unfolding events with some awe, but we recommend that they be heard. Voters are dislodged and dissatisfied, and... extremely critical of what the Republicans have done and very open to a Democratic agenda....

The corruption in Iraq, drug company lobbyists and the prescription drug plan, stagnant incomes while CEOs' incomes soar, the port deal, and waived fees for the energy companies add up to quite an indictment. The power is positioning them in a frame that requires voters to support the Democrats in order to clean up the mess in Washington.

Do Connecticut Democrats want a candidate who will stand up for Democrats and Democratic principles across the board, or one who has spent 18 years undercutting his party and gladly accepting the support of the Sean Hannitys of the world?

Do Connecticut Democrats want a candidate who will help to hold Bush accountable, or one who consistently covers for his egregious incompetence?

The national environment is charged, and Democrats are poised to take advantage of it with the right candidates and the right message. Yet every time Joe Lieberman opens his mouth or goes in front of a camera, he hurts our party's chances for electoral success this fall.

You make the call:

"Grandmothers drowning in nursing homes, families losing everything, communities torn apart - and the ruling party just sat and watched," Lieberman said. "I'm here to promise that we Democrats will find a way to let you down just like that."

OK, that one was easy. Here's another:

"As I always point out," Lieberman demurs, "he [Bush] kissed me."

Last one:

"I think George W. Bush is doing a terrible job as America's chief executive, both at home and abroad."

Answers: 1, 2, 3.

• The entire spectrum of the blogosphere continues to react to the Shays endorsement and possible GOP cross-endorsement of Lieberman: on the right, CA Yankee talks about the relationship between Shays and Pelosi and Ex-Donkey Blog calls Shays a "liberal weenie" and sees Lamont benefiting, while on the left, Connecticut Blog notes the primary is turning into quite the drama already, and ShaysWatch lampoons Shays' contention that he has "a lot of clout" in Congress.


• Susan Page has a piece in USA Today examining the current anti-incumbent political atmosphere in the Senate, equating the primary challenges to Lieberman and Chafee (datelined from my favorite diner in the world). Typical flawed beltway analysis, but there are some good quotes. Lieberman says he's taking Lamont seriously because, "you might say that I got to be a U.S. senator because for the better part of an election year in 1988, the incumbent senator didn't take me seriously... I'm not going to make that mistake." Lamont says, "On a hot day in early August, whoever can get people who feel passionately about the issues is going to win," and is quoted addressing the Southbury Democratic Town Committee:
  

  "Like a lot of you, I responded with a certain amount of pride when Al Gore asked Joe Lieberman to join him on the national ticket" in 2000, he says. "What a difference five or six years can make. It seems that Al Gore has really found his Democratic voice in that period of time, and Joe continues to lose his."



• Lamont's campaign office for the Fourth Congressional District is having its grand opening tomorrow evening, Thursday March 2nd, in Norwalk. Ned will be there for the event. Contact the campaign for more info.

That's what Chris Shays and others are proposing, via a bombshell article in the Hartford Courant:

It's been the subject of whispered conversations among top Republican officials for the past month. Now, U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, R-4th District, has let slip the secret: GOP officials have discussed cross-endorsing Democratic Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman this fall.

In an interview today with the editorial board of The Advocate of Stamford, Shays said he intends to vote for Lieberman and is encouraging a Republican endorsement of the three-term senator.

And he's not the only one:

The remark was not immediately reported by The Advocate, but it set off a flurry of calls among Republicans who have been gauging support for the idea among GOP candidates, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell and U.S. Reps. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and Nancy L. Johnson, R-5th District.

One GOP operative who was aware of the discussions said premature public disclosure of the possible cross-endorsement probably would kill the idea. That seems to be case.

By Tuesday evening, spokesmen for top Republicans publicly distanced themselves from the possibility of backing Lieberman, who faces a Democratic primary over his support of President Bush and the war in Iraq.

Regardless of whether Joe runs as a Republican, add Shays to the list of "Republicans for Lieberman" (along with Buckley, Hannity, and the rest):

"Their position on the war can't be closer," said Michael Sohn, who is Shays' campaign manager. "They both voted to go into Iraq, and they both support staying until the job is done."

Glad to see the Lamont campaign on top of this:

"We're not surprised that there are people within the Republican Party that would think about endorsing Joe. He clearly is George Bush's favorite Democrat," said Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager.

This is an absolute gift to the Lamont campaign if Lieberman isn't going to actually run on the GOP line.

If Joe is planning on running as a Republican, what can I say? More power to him.

But he needs to get the hell out of the Democratic party first.

Update: Some differing thoughts on this from CT bloggers: Matthew Gertz at My Left Nutmeg thinks this was a politically damaging screw-up by Shays but really "much ado about nothing" for Lieberman, while Genghis Conn at Connecticut Local Politics sees Farrell as the big loser, thinks "Ned Lamont and his backers ought to be thrilled," and sees in the dynamics at play here a chance for the GOP to eventually reclaim centrists in CT.

Lieberman voted against cloture on the renewal of the Patriot Act today. The vote was 69-30, with even Biden and Schumer voting in favor of cloture.

It's funny, I seem to remember Joe's opinion on filibusters being slightly different a few weeks ago.

I guess facing your first primary opponent in 36 years can do weird things to a politician.

Related: FDL has an update on the effectiveness of the netroots pressure on Planned Parenthood and NARAL for their support of Lieberman.

This Le Moyne College/Zogby poll of the attitudes of American troops in various armed forces stationed in Iraq is innovative and welcomed, and the results are very surprising.

The main finding of the poll is that a vast majority of the troops oppose the Bush-Lieberman non-policy of "stay the course." An amazing 72% of respondents "think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year." This breaks down into:

29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Only 23% of our troops agree with Joe Lieberman's Iraq policy. And, sadly, only 58% of our troops in Iraq think that "the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds."

What is clear is that our political leaders - including Joe Lieberman - are continuing to fail our troops and our nation. Joe did not ask the tough questions going in. Joe has not asked a single tough question since.

There are some other very interesting findings in the poll. Read Zogby's own analysis at Huffington Post.

Two reports on Lamont's apparently quite impressive appearance in front of the Yale College Democrats last night: first, from Yale Daily News:

One student at the talk asked Lamont what message he was trying to send to swing voters by condemning more moderate Democrats such as Lieberman. Lamont said there was "nothing moderate" about supporting the Iraq war and the president's tax cuts.

Nicely done! Time to dispel with this "moderate" canard. Joe is a hardcore neoconservative on matters of foreign policy, an extremist right-winger on religious/"values" issues, and constantly undercuts Democrats on bread-and-butter fiscal issues like tax cuts and Social Security. There's nothing "moderate" about any of that.

Also, thanks to Ben Simon, head of Yale Students for Lamont, who sent along this full report (cross-posted at My Left Nutmeg and elsewhere):

Ned Lamont spoke last night (Monday, 2/27/06) to a meeting of the Yale Democrats and the Yale community at large. Here is a summary of what he said, interspersed with some of my own comments. He made a very good overall impression on the crowd of 80-100 people, mostly students. He gave what is becoming his standard stump speech, followed by a brief Q & A session. I think that he's getting very good at telling the crowd who he is, what he's about, and why Lieberman has to go.

More after the jump:

Background:

After college, Ned worked at a small newspaper in Ludlow, VT. This experience gave him appreciation for the needs of everyday Americans. It seems like those in DC, he said, are not even trying to make a difference anymore.

Who is he?:

He is an entrepreneur, who started his own cable company that, for the first time, offered colleges a choice in their cable service. Now he wants to offer CT residents a real choice for the first time in too long. Through his business experience, he learned that you can't kick problems down the road - they'll only get worse.

Obviously, he's not afraid of a challenge. He wants to challenge the status quo and bring his entrepreneurial approach to CT politics and the US Senate.

Strategy:

"It's high time that we rock the boat!"

He plans on talking with as many people around the state as possible. He going to go to town committees, house parties, everything. This will be very much modeled on the Dean campaign. He needs grassroots support to counter the establishment support that Lieberman brings. This race is obviously an uphill battle. However, it can only be a good thing for Democrats in CT and nationally.

Lamont On the issues:

The War:

"'Stay the course' is a losing strategy. 'More of the same' is a losing strategy".

Ned respects Lieberman and his integrity, but stridently disagrees with him. Lieberman's WSJ op-ed from November spurred him to enter this race. He thinks we needed to ask more questions from the beginning and challenge the President's litany of questionable assertions. The troops have fought wonderfully, but the leadership in Washington has let them down. We need to hold those leaders accountable for their errors.

He says we need to pull the troops back. Start with reservists and Nat'l guard troops- bring them home. Pull the regular troops back to the periphery - our presence is doing more to destabilize Iraq than to help secure it.

Lamont will stand up to the President - Democrats need to stand up and be heard. The war and our conduct in the GWOT has thoroughly eroded our moral authority in the world, and we need to reclaim it.

Justice Alito:

Alito's confirmation will jeopardize a woman's right to choose for decades. The recent South Dakota law is just the most recent demonstration of that fact.

Energy Bill:

This was a bill written by lobbyists behind closed doors, overwhelmingly opposed by the rest of the New England delegation - across the aisle - yet supported by Lieberman.

Healthcare:

"We're paying more and more and getting less and less."

Our current system allows companies that do not offer benefits to come in and undercut those that do. He said, "I support universal, affordable healthcare to level the playing field."

Q & A:

Q: If you're elected, but the senate is still in Republican hands, what should Democrats do?
A: Stand up and make your strong opposition heard! However, he said that Democrats will take back the Senate.

Q: What is your ideal Democratic foreign policy?
A: 1) Utilize our allies. 2) Reclaim the moral high ground. 3) Preserve a viable military option, something the President has not done.

Bottom line?:

"Democrats should stand up and be Democrats again"
And, the money quote:

"Some people have told me that I would be jeopardizing a safe seat. This is a blue state. We wouldn't be losing a Senator, we'd be gaining a Democrat."

(Photo by Han Xu at Yale Daily News)

Ned just hit 1,000 donors, for a total of $54,631.69 so far.

Contribute here. Sign up to volunteer here.

Update: Ned blogs about the 1,000th donation at MyDD:

Last night at 9:52 PM EST, a little over two weeks from when we started receiving donations, and before we even officially announced my candidacy, the Lamont for Senate campaign received its thousandth donation online via ActBlue.

These are small donations, averaging less than $100 each by people who care deeply about having a vibrant democracy in our own country and who believe that voters in Connecticut deserve a choise in who will be their Senator in Washington.

Professors and students, mail carriers and writers, housewives, truck-drivers, meterologists, and people from all walks of life have come together to particpate in American democracy. Much of this initial support has been driven by the Netroots. This support symbolizes the type of grassroots participation that it will take to win on August 8th.

Thank you for the early boost and we look forward to your continued participation in our campaign to replace George Bush's favorite Democrat.

Thanks,
Ned

• A pro-Lamont op-ed from the Yale Daily News. Both Lieberman ('64, LAW '67) and Lamont (SOM '80) are alums. A reminder: Lamont is speaking tonight at Yale. (Update: this event is not open to the public). More at the Yale College Democrats' blog. We will hopefully have a write-up of the event tomorrow.


• Total number of posts at National Review's "The Corner" since founder and Lieberman supporter William F. Buckley (Yale '50) announced his conclusion that Bush's and Lieberman's Iraq policy has been "a failure" on Friday? 94. Number of posts referencing Buckley's change of heart? Two. A mild rebuttal of an editorial was posted this morning, and quickly downplayed. If any Democrat had written the very same words, there would have been little talk of anything else in the right-wing blogosphere this weekend. Does Joe agree with his mentor's change of heart or not?


• The first official campaign meeting for Ned Lamont for Senate will be this Saturday, March 4th, at 10am in New Haven (thanks to Kim for the details). This is not a campaign event per se but a meeting for folks interested in volunteering with the campaign. They're hoping to get 100+ volunteers there.


• Another event: Ned will be holding a meet and greet in Ridgefield this coming Sunday, March 5th.


• Markos has a post up about how Lieberman as an incumbent has forced members of his party to take unpopular positions and do political gymnastics in order to defend him. This is not how the advantage of incumbency is supposed to work for a party.

PoliticsTV will officially launch next week, but they've already conducted an interview with Ned Lamont for their "Candidate Channel" which will feature video interviews of various candidates running for office nationwide. For someone like me who would scour the C-SPAN archives looking for video of potential candidates I've heard of but never seen speak, this promises to be a great resource. If you want your NedTV, click on the following links for the full QT clips (and thanks to PoliticsTV for the preview):

• On why he's running: "We ought to give voters a choice. For too long, they haven't had a choice.... There's some real issues out there that Joe and I don't necessarily agree on and I think people deserve a robust discussion of where we ought to be going as a country and where we should stand on those issues and where Democrats should stand on those issues.... We have a government that's not dealing with the big issues of the day. We need a more entrepreneurial approach to government."


• On the culture of corruption in Washington: "I see some of these lobbying reforms that are being proposed - you can't use the Senate gym for two years after leaving office - it seems like something being written for a Saturday Night Live sketch. It doesn't seem like you're really getting to the core of the issue."


• Why challenge a sitting senator when your party is in the minority? (same clip as above): "I was talking to a fellow the other day and he said, Ned, your best response is, 'You're not gonna lose a seat, you're gonna gain a Democrat.' One of the issues that I've got with Senator Lieberman is that it's not that he cheerled us into the war in Iraq, which is a terrible foreign policy blunder for this country. It's not that he doesn't necessarily challenge the president as aggressively as he should on Sam Alito and the environment and energy independence and civil liberties and torture. But he also undercuts Democrats by not standing up and not speaking with a clear voice on these issues. And it makes it tougher for the Democrats to rally and speak with a unified voice, which we've gotta do if we're going to challenge these bad policies." (Update: Also see this clip: "I think [Democrats] want a Democratic senator that challenges the president...")


• On Iraq: "We did not ask the right questions going in.... I wish Senator Lieberman instead of cheerleading the president, had been there asking the tough questions so we went in there with our eyes open."


• On healthcare: "There's nothing more vital... It's a system that's badly, badly broken.... It's of interest to me as a small buisnessman as well because look at how much we're paying for healthcare and when we lose bids, we lose bids to fly-by-night companies that don't even provide health insurance for their folks."


• What's the biggest problem in Washington? "Lifelong career politicians.... that leads to a certain cronyism down there. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind when they talked about a citizen legislature."


• On checking presidential power run amok: "You need congressional oversight, you need checks and balances to protect us from a tyranny.... One of the things that really got me involved in this race [was] the Terri Schiavo case... it's an intensely personal decision and it's the last place you want the Federal government intruding. And the Right-To-Life movement got involved, and George Bush flew back from Crawford, TX, and Tom DeLay said the federal government's got to intervene, and Joe Lieberman backed them up on that."


• On his political heroes: "Bill Clinton, I thought did a wonderful service... I worked hard on the Bill Bradley campaign. I love Bill Bradley cause he was an entrepreneurial politician, he was an idea politician."


• On the War in Afghanistan: "One of my strong objections to the invasion of Iraq is that it has distracted us from the rest of the War on Terror."


• On Labor Unions: "We have to defend the middle class in this country.... The union movement is very important to that. It's very important that the people we trade with have some labor rights just like we have in this country. The same way that the multinationals are going offshore, I think it's very important that the union movement think broadly as well."

Via Matthew Gertz at My Left Nutmeg comes news that Diane Farrell is supporting Lieberman against Lamont:

Farrell, former first selectwoman of Westport, said that although Lieberman's Iraq position may be unpopular with many Fairfield County Democrats, she and the longtime senator have agreed on many other issues, and her endorsement was justified.

"Joe is a longtime friend and he has endorsed me and my campaign in the past," Farrell said in a telephone interview last week. "We'll have to agree to disagree on the war . . . but we agree on so many other issues" such as women's privacy rights, the Family Leave Act and fair wages.

Like Matthew, I am completely unsurprised by this. If anything, I am surprised that the support for Lieberman among elected officials and the Democratic establishment is as tepid as it seems to be at this early stage. Between SEIU "not being in a hurry to jump into a primary race" and Lieberman feeling forced to trot out ho-hum endorsements from longtime friends and supporters, all against a candidate who hasn't even officially declared yet... Lamont is actually facing a less daunting political landscape than most would have predicted at this point.