• LamontBlog made a fleeting appearance on CNN's blog segment yesterday, which focused on the Lieberman-Lamont race. Ned Lamont Resource has the video (YouTube). If they show a screenshot of this post next time, it'll be like, whoa, infinity, man.


• Remember a couple of days ago, when the Pentagon loudly announced they had initiated the "largest air campaign since 2003" in Iraq? With thousands of troops? Turns out, not so much. Time reports that not a single shot was fired, nor a single insurgent leader captured. Chris Albritton at Back to Iraq has more. Complete smoke and mirrors, just like the entirety of the three-year Bush-Lieberman Iraq policy. Big rally outside Lieberman's office in Hartford this Sunday, as we enter the fourth year of this war.


• U.S. News and World Report will reportedly be publishing a piece this weekend that claims that, right after 9/11/01, Bush administration lawyers in the White House and Justice Department argued that the same executive authority that allowed warantless wiretapping inside the United States could also be used to justify warrantless physical searches of suspects inside the United States. Crooks and Liars has the video. Does Joe Lieberman support throwing out the Fourth Amendment, or does he finally think this might be worth investigating now?


• Liz Dupont-Diehl, formerly of the Citizens' Research Education Network, is the latest addition to the Lamont campaign, which she joins as Communications Director.


• Tom Gogola at the New Haven Advocate summarizes it well: "The Lamont moment has arrived."

Joe Lieberman, March 20th, 2003:

What we are doing here is not only in the interest of the safety of the American people. Believe me, Saddam Hussein would have used these weapons against us eventually or given them to terrorists who would have. But what we are doing here, in overthrowing Saddam and removing those weapons of mass destruction and taking them into our control, is good for the security of people all over the world, including the Iraqi people themselves.

This is a task of high justice, necessity, and idealism in the best tradition of American principles and patriotism. And I'm proud and grateful that we have the kind of fighting force that we have over there -- and the strong families back at home sending their love and support.

We have suffered as a nation through three years of a war justified by false intelligence, sold as being an absolute "necessity," and conducted with complete incompetence by our political leaders.

Joe Lieberman has never asked tough questions of President Bush through any of these phases. He has failed his constituents and his nation.

He has never provided the critical and independent thinking that might have saved our nation from - or at least mitigated - this great foreign policy debacle, a point Zbigniew Brzezinski insightfully raised yesterday:

What troubles me the most is not that which that I have criticized, but that which hasn't happened. That is to say: a serious and comprehensive Democratic challenge on this subject. Democratic leaders have been silent or evasive. They have not offered an alternative to the war in Iraq. It's easy to criticize – that was the first part of my speech. That is easy to do, although some of us did it sooner than others.

But they haven't offered an alternative. Also they have not seriously challenged the view of the world that is being propagated from the top. At a time of a deepening and widening crisis in Iraq, and a widening gap between America and the world, that to me is a form of political desertion.

Joe Lieberman, a neoconservative in the most accurate sense of the word, has made such a challenge all but impossible. To use Brzenzinski's words, he has led the charge of "political desertion" on national security.

Joe is a senator who likes to call himself "independent-minded." But when it counted most, in a matter of war and peace, in a matter of national security, in a matter of the most significant strategic importance for our nation in decades, Joe Lieberman has been exactly the opposite - a cowed, uncritical, rubber-stamp supporter of a failed policy.

Joe Lieberman has failed his country for three years straight, and worse, shows absolutely no signs of changing, even while many Republicans already have. As Harry Reid has said, "Joe is a fine man, he has strong feelings, but he's just alone. Even Republicans don't agree with Joe."

In many ways, it's three years too late to be having a debate on this. But better today than three years from now - three more years of mindlessly defending incompetence.

As a general rule, an 18-year incumbent senator shouldn't feel the need to go to the AP to whine about a primary opponent with single-digit name recognition during the first week of a campaign.

Not a good sign for Lieberman.

According to Joe Lieberman, the support of 33% of the American public for the removal of the president from office is justifiable grounds for censure:

...Roughly one-third of the American people have consistently expressed their belief that this President is unfit to lead this nation. That is a startlingly large percentage of our people who have totally lost confidence in our nation's leader.

This extraordinary divergence of opinion tells us that there is a rift in our public life that extends far beyond the specific circumstances of this case, a rift that the President's misconduct has only exacerbated. A statement of censure is not an antidote that will magically eliminate this division, but I believe it will help by demonstrating that we can find common moral ground and articulate our common values even though we Senators and our constituents have disagreed about impeachment.

Yes, of course, that was seven years ago. And it involved a blowjob.

According to recent polling, 46% of Americans, a plurality, support the censure of President Bush. 29% of Republicans support the censure of President Bush. And 42% of Americans - including 47% of Independents - support the impeachment of President Bush. That's significantly more than the one-third (in Lieberman's own words) who supported impeachment in 1999.

If Joe Lieberman does not support Sen. Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush, we are left with only two possible conclusions: he was either lying about his justifications for supporting the censure of President Clinton in 1999, or he has revealed himself to be a clear and undeniable hypocrite in 2006.

• Ned Lamont will be on Colin McEnroe's radio show today at 5pm. Colin posts in his blog at the Courant that he will be writing a column on the race for this weekend's NE Magazine. For now, he seems to be a big proponent of - shock! - democracy:
  

  In the case of senators, we step back every six years and evaluate the person. Have we elected the right man (or woman)? We need this primary, because it's quite possible that Lieberman has seriously failed the people who have elected him. This is the only way we're going to find out. The Republicans aren't going to field a candidate who can help us sort it out. We have to do that in between now and August 8. And I find I do resent a bunch of second-rate politicians, many of whom who have ducked most of the big challenges of their political lives, especially the challenge posed by Gov. John G. Rowland, telling us now is not the time to question Joe Lieberman. Now is exactly the time. Maybe we'll decide he deserves our trust again. But don't tell us we can't ask the question, just because you're scared of him.



• Speaking of possible Republican candidates, the Connecticut Post reports that former Derby mayor and State Rep. Alan Schlesinger may throw his hat in the ring. His "pet issue" would be social security privatization, and GOP chairman George Gallo gives him the thumbs-up:
  

  Calling Social Security his "pet issue," Schlesinger, an attorney and Derby's finance director, said Democrats are misleading the public by minimizing the problem.
  
  "I was extremely offended by Congress and Lieberman's charade over Social Security," Schlesinger said. "The baby boomers are retiring. "How does that bulge get absorbed? Actuarially, it's an unsound program."
  
  Saying he would offer more specifics on his plan when his candidacy is made official, Schlesinger described it as a "quasi-pension system."...
  
  "I think Alan's got all of the qualifications we look for. He has both legislative and executive experience," said George D. Gallo, chairman of the state Republican Party

  
  Genghis Conn has more.


• With Bush dropping down to 33% in the Pew poll and record lows in almost every other poll, even Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) is considering supporting Sen. Feingold's censure resolution. Alas, for Joe Lieberman, if there's no blowjob involved, he doesn't want to talk about it.

Starting this coming Tuesday, March 21st until the following Tuesday, March 28th, Democratic Town Committees and caucuses in every town across the state of Connecticut will be choosing delegates to the State Convention on Saturday, May 20th. If 15% of these delegates support Ned Lamont's candidacy, he will qualify for the ballot for the August 8th primary.

According to the official state party website:

Window for selection of Delegates to Conventions: March 21-28, 2006

Certification of endorsements: March 29, 2006 (4pm). If a caucus is the selecting authority for delegates according to your town or city party rules, public notice must be published in a town-wide publication at least five full days before the caucus. Local party rules may require earlier notice, but pursuant to State Party Rules, notice cannot be published more than 15 days prior to the caucus.

These are likely to be rather small meetings. Ned Lamont has supporters all over the state. All that is required in order to either be nominated as a delegate or to vote in the caucus is that you be a resident of the town in question and a registered Democrat.

Ned is already gaining some institutional support within the party, but this campaign is always going to be people-powered and grassroots first. There will be a petition drive as well, and Ned will definitely be on the August ballot. But think about what a message it would send to get 15% of the votes at the convention... or higher... or much higher.

You can run as a delegate. You can vote for delegates supportive of Ned Lamont. Next week is the time for action.

Contact State Central at 860-560-1775 or your town committee (full list of links here, at the bottom of the page) for more information. Get involved if you can.

Uh oh, Joe. Listen to what your best friend had to say today:

Hannity: Ya know what? This guy [Feingold] made the case for weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological, nuclear - this is…

Me: He believed the President, you mean?

Hannity: Well, I mean, it’s a cute little line, but it's - it would show how utterly and completely idiotic and incompetent all Democrats are if in fact they make their decisions based only on what one person tells them. So if you are saying that they are that inept, then they don't belong in office anyway…

Et tu, Joe?

As President Bush made clear yesterday, this must end. The hour of truth and decision has arrived. This is Saddam's last chance, and the United Nations' best chance to show that its declarations of international law stand for something more than the paper on which they are written. It is time for all nations, law abiding and peace loving, to make clear that, after September 11, the world will not hesitate or equivocate while a tyrant stocks his arsenal and builds alliances with terrorists.

I am grateful that President Bush has effectively begun the critical work of educating the American people, the Congress, and the world about why. Our cause is just. The facts are on our side.

- Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Senate floor, September 13th, 2002

Sounds like a lovers' quarrel!

Actually, Sean did go on to praise Joe at the end of the mp3 clip. You can rest easy, Joe. He was talking about all the other Democrats who cited Bush's effective work educating the Congress and the American people about the justifications for the war on the floor of the Senate, I guess.

Salon has published 279 more photographs and 19 videos from the Army's investigation into detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib. I have not viewed them. I don't think I will.

Joe Lieberman, however, did have the chance to view them two years ago.

Just a few days before this opportunity, in a Senate hearing with Sec. Rumsfeld, he expressed his opinion on the moral relativity of American soldiers torturing and killing Iraqi prisoners, which amounted to "hey, the terrorists are worse than we are":

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, the behavior by Americans at the prison in Iraq is, as we all acknowledge, immoral, intolerable and un-American. It deserves the apology that you have given today and that have been given by others in high positions in our government and our military.

I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized. Those who have killed hundreds of Americans in uniform in Iraq working to liberate Iraq and protect our security have never apologized.

And those who murdered and burned and humiliated four Americans in Fallujah a while ago never received an apology from anybody.

So it's part of -- wrongs occurred here, by the people in those pictures and perhaps by people up the chain of command.

But Americans are different. That's why we're outraged by this. That's why the apologies were due.

As Josh Marshall commented at the time,

Ugly, pandering, a display of the cheapest tendencies of the man.

Our moral superiority to mass murderers and people who desecrate people's bodies in town squares is, while thankfully true, simply not relevant to this issue.

This is the sort of subject-changing our parents try to wean us from when we're in grade school. (Okay, I did that. But look what Tommy did!) And of course there's the side-issue that Lieberman is playing to the notion that there's some sort of 'they did this to us and now we did this to them' issue here. And (how many times does it have to be said?) these folks in Abu Ghraib weren't the 9/11 planners.

Nothing Lieberman said is untrue precisely. It does set us apart from fascists and mass-murderers that Americans are outraged by this and that there will be investigations and accountability. But talk about defining deviance down!

In cases like this, emphasis is everything. And his was all wrong.

For Mr. Responsibility and Morality, what a disappointment.

He can take a lesson not only from John McCain but from Lindsey Graham too.

The shame of a nation.

"I don’t believe every public official is going to come out and support Ned Lamont. But I believe in the voting booth they will."

- State House Assistant Majority Leader David McCluskey (D-West Hartford) on the potential party support for Ned Lamont's candidacy. (Hat tip to BranfordBoy at MLN).

• This turned out to be a $10,000+ day for Ned Lamont on ActBlue. The latest numbers have him above $102,000 total.


• If you want to know why this all matters on the second official day of the campaign, read this post by Kos today on the importance of early money.


• Scroll down to see the full video of Ned Lamont's announcement speech.


• Ned was interviewed today by Ray Hardman of WNPR (mp3). Listen to it, it's good.


• Bob Brigham writes on Lieberman's monumental missteps out of the gate of this, his first primary campaign for any office in over three decades:
  

  Look at the positioning to date, Lieberman is getting crappy advice from Sean Smith who thinks that assuming Lieberman's constituents are stupid and yelling that Lamont is angry will carry the day, as long as they throw enough money at the problem. Meanwhile, Lamont is empowering people to raise his campaign up as more people get involved...to think smarter and work harder, to let reality join us as a community.

  
  Lieberman is just reverting by default to the last campaign he ran: against Howard Dean for the presidential nomination in 2004. Unfortunately for him, Ned Lamont is not Howard Dean, Connecticut in 2006 is not America in 2004, and Joe's campaign that year was an absolute joke anyway. The Joementum stays the same.


• The latest Gallup poll finds that an astonishing 67% of Americans believe that President Bush does not "have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq." Sen. Joe Lieberman is, obviously, not among them. The Bush-Cheney-Lieberman policy on Iraq has been judged a failure by over two-thirds of the American public.
  
  This Sunday will mark our nation's entrance into the fourth year of this exceedingly unnecessary, strategically disastrous, and monumentally mishandled war. Sen. Joe Lieberman still refuses to ask any tough questions.
  
  Is this a one-issue campaign? Absolutely not. But if a discussion on Iraq policy is not a major part of this campaign, the candidates will be willfully ignoring the single most pressing issue facing our nation and the state of Connecticut right now.

Updated and bumped: The netroots came through! $100,000 for Ned Lamont!

Yesterday, Ned Lamont's ActBlue numbers flew past 1,500 donors, past 1,600 donors, and is now up to 1,614 1,662 1,701 1,733 individual donors, for a total of $92,008.52 $95,351.53 $97,251.59 $100,877.65 as of 5PM ET.

All of this without any institutional online support (i.e. MoveOn, DFA). This is purely the blogs - and Ned's great announcement speech - at work.

There's no reason we can't get Ned past $100k today.

Push it real good.

PoliticsTV has a flash video of the highlights of yesterday's announcement in Hartford up on their front page. More coming soon, I'm told.

Update: PoliticsTV just put up WMV and QT files of both the "highlights" clip and the full speech with introductions:

Lamont's Announcement of Campaign for U.S. Senate - Highlights (1:12)
Windows Media | Quicktime

Lamont's Announcement of Campaign for U.S. Senate with Introduction - Full Video (19:20)
Windows Media | Quicktime

More Lamont Videos:
at the PTV Candidate Channel

Crooks and Liars has the video:

Matthews: Karl Rove, who is the president's deputy chief of staff and his political adviser, has said there's a pre-9-11 thinking among Democrats. They don‘t get what you just said. Is that what you believe? Democrats don't get the world you described.

Mehlman: I think Joe Lieberman does. I think a lot of the Democratic leaders don't.

Ken Mehlman, Sean Hannity, William F. Buckley, Chris Shays, George W. Bush, the NRCC, prominent GOP fundraisers, the entire Neoconservative movement, self-righteous moralizing right-wing theocrats, smarmy cable TV hosts looking to slam the Democratic party... they all adore Joe. They think he's a righteous dude.

Ned's at $98,000 on ActBlue... that's about $6,000 today so far. Let's get him the rest of the way to $100,000 today and show them who our favorite Democrat is!

• Dick Morris - who once consulted for Ned Lamont in a state senate race - dismisses Lamont's chances versus Lieberman, telling Political Wire, "He need not be taken very seriously. Lieberman is not vulnerable and a primary will only make him that much stronger (assuming Ned even gets on the ballot)." Given the guy's track record, the campaign couldn't ask for any better news than Dick Morris prognosticating against it.


• Joementum spells out Joe Lieberman's position on censuring a president: if it's George W. Bush and we're talking about the brazen felonious disregard for a specific statute protecting Americans' civil liberties, he'd "prefer to see us solve the problem" than address it via censure. If it's fellow Democrat Bill Clinton and we're talking about a blowjob, Lieberman himself will call for censure.


• BranfordBoy has the full transcript of the official announcement yesterday (not the prepared remarks).


• More on the announcement: Howie Klein was at the event and posts about the playlist chosen by the campaign. I think U2's "Beautiful Day" may be the most overused campaign song ever... wake me the day a candidate walks in to Chuck D. screaming "Nineteen eighty NINE!"

(Update and bumped: Spazeboy at La Resistance has posted clips on the event from the WTNH and WFSB newscasts tonight, and a WTIC clip is available here. Politics TV was also there, and there should be more video available on the web soon. The coverage I've seen so far has been quite positive.)

A quick round-up of reports on Ned Lamont's speech, which apparently did indeed "rock" Hartford this afternoon.

BranfordBoy at My Left Nutmeg spells out how:

I've never been a big fan of "Ned Rocks," the unofficial slogan of the Lamont campaign, but damn if it doesn't perfectly describe what happened at the Old State House in Hartford today.

Ned Lamont officially introduced himself to the voters of Connecticut today and did it with a casual mastery that belies his wet-behind-the-ears political status.

As he spoke, the crowd burst into applause with all the regularity of Republicans at the State of the Union, but with none of the hypocrisy. Lamont clearly spoke from the heart and the crowd responded with love.

jsmckay at Daily Kos, while at first skeptical towards Lamont, came away a true believer. The positive, expansive nature of his campaign message struck a chord:

I had great hopes but few expectations when I walked into the room for Lamont's formal announcement. To my pleasant surprise, there was a packed house of passionate progressives just itching to enter the fray. Even better, Ned Lamont seemed ready to lead the charge.

He began by wisely laying out the idea that he is not simply an antiwar candidate but a pro-Democratic candidate. Staking out the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, he laid out a progressive agenda on all the positions that most Kossacks, and most CT voters, would agree with....

There's noblese oblige in his background and he looks like Jimmy Stewart...

I'm getting on Lamont's bandwagon right away.

Finally, Neal Fink at My Left Nutmeg has the single best story of the day I've read so far:

One of Lamont's gifts, that will be a key ingredient in his recipe for victory, is a unique ability to take a strong stand on some very controversial issues without coming off as angry (imagine a much more articulate and likeable Howard Dean.) Ned’s energy and enthusiasm is contagious. Everyone in the room was at the edge of their seats, applauding and cheering enthusiastically as he laid out a clear and succinct agenda of issues....

Lest you dismiss today’s enthusiasm as the reaction of a loaded audience of Lamont supporters, let me share a bit of what I got to see and hear first hand. I was standing in the back of the room, alongside the platform for the many TV crews and photographers covering the event. Before the event started, and during the brief introductory speeches, most of these news crews seemed settled in for another dull assignment. A few minutes into Ned’s talk, even these ordinarily disinterested folks seemed to sit up and take notice of what was happing on stage and around the room.

Not only did I catch a few of the press representatives applauding during Ned’s speech, I overheard a fantastic exchange between a cameraman and one the reporters. After it was all over, one of them remarked "wow, I would vote for this guy" to which the other responded"“me too!" This is the same reaction I keep hearing and reading about as Ned appears around the state. After just a few minutes of hearing Ned speak, something clicks and people “get it.” If he can get an audience with a massive number of Connecticut Democrats, the August primary will be a Lamont Landslide.

And all Lieberman's out-of-touch campaign could do after this stunning performance was pout and lie:

Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith said he was disappointed with the tone of Lamont's announcement.

"Attacking Senator Lieberman's character and integrity was a predictable but dishonorable way to begin this campaign," Smith said. "Mr. Lamont is clearly going to run a very negative and angry campaign where the truth doesn't get in the way."

Lamont's communications director, Liz Dupont-Diehl, disputed that characterization of the announcement.

"I don't even think he was at the same event we were at," Dupont-Diehl said. "Ned's event was full of very constructive ideas and real plans. This is the kind of thing that Karl Rove would say."

I stole this title from Firedoglake. [Note: the title of this post has been changed so as not to unnecessarily distract from the very serious issue at stake.] I might as well have stolen the entire post. Every time I think Joe Lieberman has crossed the last line, he finds one more to cross. This one is unconscionable, especially for a candidate who claims to be pro-choice:

Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.

Matt Stoller has more in a justified rant. Lieberman's words are hurtful and callous. He is sorely out-of-touch with both his constituents and any sense of human decency.

Follow Jane's advice and contact NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Tell them to support Ned Lamont, who is clearly the only pro-choice candidate in this race.

And then read the two posts below to see what a positive, forward-looking Democratic vision for Connecticut looks like.

• Thanks for the updates, Aldon. The prepared text of the speech is also posted in full below the fold.


• Last update from Aldon: "Okay. The speech is over and the crowd is breaking up. You can read the prepared text of Ned's speech online here. As I noted before, Ned embellished the speech a lot and I would encourage you to check out any online recordings. I know that Politics TV is supposed to post a video of the whole announcement sometime soon."


• 4:38 PM: Aldon: "When asked about Chris Shays endorsing Lieberman, Ned said, Diane is a great candidate and I hope that everyone who came up here from Fairfield county remembers that."


• 4:36 PM: Aldon: "And we are going to show people on a hot day in August that we can win, not by being Republican lite but by being proud Democrats."


• 4:31 PM: Aldon: "Ned is delivering a GREAT speech. Constantly interrupted with applause. He is embellishing his prepared speech considerably."


• 4:19 PM: Aldon: "Now, Ned's mom is getting up to speak now. 'I am Ned's mom and I urge you to vote for him' She talks about growing up in Puerto Rico and still trying to teach Ned Spanish. She introduces Emily, Ned's daughter. 'Imagine all the people living life in peace' she starts off with. She talks about talking politics with her dad when she was six. The crowd goes wild as Ned comes in.


• 4:12 PM: Aldon: "Max is still speaking. He makes comments about how Ned is not a pacifict. Ned understands that there is evil in this world, and someone yells out 'LIEBERMAN'. Everyone laughs, and then Max goes back to talk about how we need to make sure that if we do have to call up our sons and daughters, we need to make sure we do it right, only when needed and providing them with proper armor."


• 4:06 PM: Aldon: "Now up, Max from the Bridgeport Board of Ed. He is talking about how Ned has volunteered at Harding High School in Bridgeport where he's taught. Max goes on to talk about the importance of universal affordable healthcare. He talks about making medicare simpler, not more complex. All our families deserve the opportunity to send students to clean and safe public schools, and that is based on funding public education, and not simply coming up with slogans. Our U.S. Senator should spend more time in Bridgeport than in Baghdad."


• 4:01 PM: Aldon: "Blow by Blow: Lyn May is opening the announcement.'I have been looking forward to this day since Tom Swan called me and asked me to get involved.' She says that here reason to be here is because of civil liberties."


• 3:54 PM: Aldon: "Checking in from the Old State House. The energy here is incredible. People ahve printed up their own signs and are distributing them. The seats are pretty full and there are lots of people standing around the edges. The folks who are going to appear on the stage with Ned are standing by. Volunteers have been handing in projects. Politics TV is here and is recording interviews with various supporters."

Original post:

Aldon writes in the comments:

It is 2:15 and I am up at the Old State House. Rose, our volunteer coordinator is briefing a volunteer on a project. Tina, who is doing ops for us is directing people where to put balloons and banners.

The pre-announcement soundtrack is playing over the speakers. I've been doing minor tweaks to the website and volunteers are working on an assortment of tasks.

It has been amazing to watch the empty room with stacks of folded chairs and a helium tank transformed into a setting for a great political rally.

I'm sure there is some important parallel there to how Ned's campaign is helping transform the political climate, but I'll leave that for others to write about.

Hopefully, I'll get a chance to add a few more comments today during the event.

Consider this an open thread for the purposes of live-blogging the announcement! I'll update this post with relevant comments.

Some other great news: Tom D'Amore, ex-Weicker chief of staff who was in discussions about helping Lamont, today officially signed up with the Lamont campaign as a paid consultant.

Prepared Text of Ned Lamont's Announcement Speech

Good Afternoon. Thank you for being here.

I understand that some of the political brass do not like the idea of a primary: I see it more as a kitchen table debate within our Democratic family: what do Democrats stand for, what type of country do we want, how do we get there?

I did a little research on announcement speeches and to paraphrase from a Democrat who stood before the people of our state, about eighteen years ago. He said: "Connecticut needs a Senator who will bring new energy to Washington and new help back here in Connecticut...Connecticut needs a Senator who will put Connecticut first."

Senator Lieberman, those words are true today. I wish you did not need to be challenged, I wish there was nothing to challenge.

Here we are eighteen years later, it is time for us to elect a Senator who will stand up for Connecticut, stand up for our Democratic values, and stand up to the Bush administration whose policies are so harmful to our state and our country, and that is why I am announcing my candidacy to the United States Senate.

Let me tell you who I am, and what I am for.

My first job out of college was editor of a small town weekly newspaper. The biggest employer had pulled out of town leaving a community that felt like it was knocked on its back. The neighbors invited me into their homes and their hearts, and together with the local selectmen and civic leaders, this small town got back on its feet.

I have never forgotten what a difference good government can make in people's lives; today it seems that Washington has stopped trying to make a difference, they're pulling back the helping hand, and they're telling Connecticut's families: Good Night and Good Luck.

But that's not America: Democrats are not going to let that happen.

Senator, stop by Bridgeport on your way back from Baghdad and listen to your constituents:

"I have earned my social security, not a private savings account."

"We deserve universal, affordable healthcare, not a health savings account."

"I want a great community school for my kids, not a voucher."

I taught a course last year, "How to start your own business" at Harding High in Bridgeport.

It is an old school with great teachers, but we are long on security guards in the hallways and short on coaches and the arts. I tried to get the community involved, give these students some role models, local entrepreneurs who could tell their story and remind the students- you can do it, too.

I met Joshua Grant, the founder of Soul to Soul Restaurant. He inspired the class to put together a power point marketing plan which just maybe will take Soul to Soul from coast to coast. Joshua, please stand up, you are a friend and I appreciate your being here.

I started a company from scratch; we build advanced video systems for college campuses. We compete with the largest cable operators in the country, and I am proud as a small businessman that we give college campuses a choice.

I am jumping into this Senate primary because voters deserve a choice.

Let's have the debate:

Three years ago politicians with years of political experience rushed our troops off to war; they told us the war would be easy; we'd be greeted as liberators.

Now three years later, America is no safer, Israel is no safer, the Middle East is even less stable, Iran is on the prowl, Osama Bid Laden is on the prowl, and we have 130,000 valiant troops stuck in the middle of a violent civil war in the heart of Iraq.

Those who got us into this mess should be held accountable.

In Washington they give you a medal; in my world they say: "You're fired."

I say it is time for the Iraqis to take control of their own destiny and we're just getting in the way.

Let's have the debate.

The $250 million a day we are spending in Iraq is better spent on pre-school and healthcare, public transit and veterans benefits.

Let's have the debate.

I would have lead the opposition to the nomination of Judge Alito? Next year the Supreme Court will hear the South Dakota law which outlaws a woman's right to choose, even in the case of rape and incest.

Let's have the debate.

I believe that President George Bush's illegal wiretaps, his reckless fiscal and environmental policies are weakening America and leaving too many hardworking citizens behind.

I doubt that anybody will call me "George Bush's favorite Democrat."

Do you remember that Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska? Part of the 6,371 earmarks, which are multi million dollar pork ridden special favors for special congressmen, added to a bill at the last moment, under the cloak of darkness. And it's all legal, the big easy for career politicians.

If you are not shouting from the rafters that this is wrong, then you are complicit and part of the problem.

I am not a shouter, but I come to this race as someone who is obviously not afraid of a challenge. I am ready challenge business as usual, I am ready to fight for our Democratic values and I will tell the Bush administration to put their haughty arrogance in their back pocket and deal with the rest of the world with respect. That's how America will start winning again in a post 9-11 world.

As I travel the state I have heard from thousands of you - students and elderly, veterans and teachers, small business and labor, even a few courageous political leaders: let's have a primary, let's have the debate: how did we get into this mess and how do we get out?

Sure, there are some that have not been quite so encouraging: Ned, don't jeopardize a safe seat.

I tell them, Connecticut is a progressive state. You're not losing a Senator, you're gaining a Democrat.

They tell me, Ned, don't rock the boat.

And I tell them, baby, it's high time we "rock the boat."

We are running for the heart and soul of the Democratic party; we're showing the country that we can win as proud Democrats fueled by your grassroots support and energy and passion; and on August 9 the pundits will be shaking their heads and noting: here come the Democrats.

Today is the beginning of the end of Joe Lieberman's career in the United States Senate.

Ned Lamont will make his candidacy official at 4pm ET at the Old State House in Hartford, CT.

The Hartford Courant has a great article this morning detailing Ned's recent appearance at the DFA meetup in Torrington. (I know ctblogger has the full video of this appearance, and will hopefully host it soon). Over an hour at a bar at a Mexican restaurant, Ned was able to convince some very skeptical activists of both his sincerity on the issues and viability as a candidate:

His would-be audience was unimpressed. Lamont got hard looks from one of the first to arrive: John L. Miller, 75, who made the winding, 30-minute drive from Cornwall with Paul H. Baren, 81, and Stephen H. Senzer, 76, to see if he is worth their time.

"We're not about to throw in with someone that has no chance," said Miller, who intensely dislikes Lieberman. "I was hoping to be more impressed with the planning."

Lamont implored them to stay.

And an hour later, after a free-wheeling discussion that quickly moved beyond the war in Iraq to the Patriot Act, universal health care, the environment and the economy, Lamont would have some recruits for a campaign that officially opens today.

The more people see of Ned Lamont, the more they are convinced he is exactly the person Connecticut needs in the Senate. With only 6% name recognition among Democrats, he is already at 13% in the polls.

The converse is true of Joe Lieberman: the more people see of him, the less they like him. They are reminded of his poor campaign for Vice President and his even less successful run in the 2004 primaries, where he scored a mere 5% of the vote and won zero Connecticut delegates to send to Boston. Perhaps that's why his campaign sounds so disjointed and desperate, even at this early stage:

"We're going to run a campaign. We're going to have him here and be doing this the old-fashioned way: He's going to be asking people for their vote," said Sean Smith, recently hired to run the Lieberman campaign. "He ran for vice president. He ran for president. He hasn't really had a dialogue with Connecticut voters about Connecticut issues in a while. He is looking forward to it."

He "hasn't really had a dialogue with Connecticut voters about Connecticut issues in a while"? What was stopping him? Isn't that precisely the job description of an elected representative?

The fact remains that Joe Lieberman has not had to ask Connecticut Democrats for their vote in 36 years. He is going to be doing so very reluctantly, and without foreswearing the option of bolting the party and caucusing with the Senate GOP if he loses the primary.

The Nedmentum starts today.

• Amazingly, Lieberman today once again refuses to rule out running as an Independent or Republican if he were to lose the Democratic primary:
  

  "Any disappointment would be in the kind of campaign that is run. I intend on winning the primary, but I'm not going to exclude any other possibility. I want to be on the November ballot, and I intend to be Democratic candidate on the ballot. I'm proud to be a Democrat and I have my own vision of what that means."

  
  Threatening to leave the party if you lose is certainly a unique definition of what it means to be a Democrat. Joe's message is clear: this seat belongs to him, not to the people who elected him or the party that elected him. That attitude is neither Democratic nor democratic.


• Add yet another longtime Republican to the list of "reality-based" viewpoints on Iraq that Joe still doesn't share. Who's next, Wolfowitz? Get out while you still can, Joe. You're quickly becoming an absolute joke on national security.


• Ned Lamont's hometown Greenwich Time gets the headline right: "Lamont: Joe's out of touch." Lieberman once again says the campaign "can't be about one issue." Don't flatter yourself, Joe. Connecticut Democrats have a plethora of issues with you. Why don't you appear in an open forum with Ned Lamont and see if you can count them as they're thrown at you?


• Adam Cohen mentions the effect of the netroots on Lamont's campaign in an op-ed piece on Crashing the Gate in today's Times (via Scarce at My Left Nutmeg):
  

  Far-flung political activists now join together on sites like dailykos.com, and inject themselves into matters that used to be settled behind closed doors. The netroots helped make Mr. Dean head of the Democratic National Committee, over several establishment candidates. Now, they are backing Ned Lamont in a primary challenge to Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who is about as popular among liberal bloggers as a computer virus.

  
  I disagree. Computer viruses generally don't stick around for 18 years.


• One final time: Tomorrow, Old State House, Hartford, CT, 4pm. The official announcement of Ned Lamont for Senate. I unfortunately won't be there, but hopefully as many as possible will. If you are planning on posting a report or photos or video, send me an email.

Even for Joe, I don't understand it.

I don't understand how he can claim to care about security, yet be OK with a foreign government running American ports.

I don't understand how he can claim to be a representative of the people, yet be for a deal that the vast majority of the public as well political leaders across the country from both parties (Sen. Clinton, Sen. Schumer, Sen. Menendez, Rep. King, to name a few in the region) are so vehemently against.

I don't understand how he can claim to be a Democrat, yet literally recite Karl Rove talking points (video from WTIC), defending Bush on the first security issue in years on which Democrats are getting any traction. Compare and contrast:

Lieberman:

[The U.A.E.] have been not just allies but extraordinary allies, courageous allies, in the war against Islamist terrorism since 9/11. The port at Dubai, which is run by the same company, has more visits by U.S. Navy ships than any other port in the world, and they do it with a real sense of security.

Rove:

More U.S. Navy vessels dock at ports in the United Arab Emirates than dock at ports in anywhere outside the United States. We have used their air facilities, they have one of the most sophisticated air training facilities in the world that's located there that we use. They've been enormously supportive in Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean, the message would be, "Be a loyal ally to the United States, have a big target painted on your government by Al Qaida for cooperating so aggressively with the United States in fighting the war on terror, and what you'll get is a slap from the United States in return.

Lieberman:

Without giving them the opportunity over the 45 days they have under law to present their case, it will look to a lot of the Arab world like we're just doing it for reasons of discrimination.

Rove:

And it's also important that the message be that - within - we're not going to win the war on terror by ourselves. We need - we need to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslim governments and Muslims around the world. And this just sends a very bad signal that a partner of the United States would be ill-treated, unfairly treated, particularly when the concerns, from our perspective, are not justified.

Most infuriatingly, I don't understand how the man who now claims to be so concerned about the U.S. image in the Arab world can be the same man who spewed these disgusting words to the Arab world after Abu Ghraib broke:

I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized. Those who have killed hundreds of Americans in uniform in Iraq working to liberate Iraq and protect our security have never apologized.

And those who murdered and burned and humiliated four Americans in Fallujah a while ago never received an apology from anybody.

I just don't understand how anyone with this sad record can be taken seriously on matters of national security.