Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Saturday, May 27, 2006


Saturday Round-Up

Friday, May 26, 2006


Joe Goes Negative?

Smearing Ned now would be pretty desperate, but we'll see...

In the meantime, remember what Joe once had to say about his opponent using some minor votes from decades ago in "technically accurate" attack ads:

At that point, Weicker stopped ignoring me. He hit back with a barrage of attack commercials, portraying
me the same way Larry DeNardis had back in 1980 - as a big-taxing big spender. One of those ads was technically accurate but didn't mention that the tax votes cited were cast seventeen years earlier, in 1971.


Lamont Wins MoveOn Primary

From an email:

Dear MoveOn member in Connecticut,

I wanted to share the results from our online primary with you before we tell the media. Drumroll, please: By a whopping 85% to 14%, MoveOn members supported Ned Lamont for Connecticut's U.S. Senate seat - securing him the MoveOn endorsement.

The rest of the email after the jump, including quotes from some who participated:

Now that we've decided together to support Lamont, please consider making a contribution to his campaign by clicking on the link below. Senator Lieberman has a war chest of over $4.2 million - so Ned will need all of our help to wage a good campaign. Can you chip in a few bucks to help elect a new Democratic senator for Connecticut?


You can also sign up to volunteer for Ned Lamont on his website at the link above.

Your endorsement of Ned Lamont means that we'll raise money for him and help get folks out to the polls for the August 8th primary. We'll bring some national focus to the race as well. But how well he does in August will depend largely on our Connecticut members. Now's the time to get involved.

So why did the vote come out the way we did? Here are a few representative comments that illustrate what we heard from a lot of you:

"I do not see that Senator Lieberman actually cares about Connecticut voters. He has treated them with contempt and complacence. I don't have a problem with Democrats who don't vote the party line, but I do have a problem with senators who treat their offices as an entitlement, and this is what Sen. Lieberman seems to be doing."
-Dara from New Haven, CT

"Lamont is exactly the sort of candidate MoveOn should support: a true progressive running against the forces of Beltway conventional wisdom and accommodation of the Radical Right."
-Greg from Watertown, CT

"I'm impressed with the "fresh approach" that Ned Lamont seems to bring to the table. I think that he's correct when he says that the Democratic party needs to stand out from the Republicans (and the "W" administration). At first I was leaning towards Joe Lieberman because I can see that he is an established senator who has many contacts and perhaps has the power of persuasion within Washington, but I'm willing to take a chance on a "new guy" who better fits the voice I'd like represented."
-Meegan from Waterbury, CT

"Ned Lamont articulates my values about Iraq, health care, the environment."
-Marion from Branford, CT

Look for more from us on this race in the weeks ahead. And thanks again for helping MoveOn make this important decision.


–Eli Pariser
Executive Director, MoveOn.org Political Action
Friday, May 26th, 2006


More "Bipartisanship"

In two Senate votes so far today, Sen. Lieberman has:

1) Voted for the confirmation of Michael Hayden as Director of Central Intelligence.

Ned Lamont opposed the nomination, joining such senators as Dodd, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Feingold, Bayh, and even Specter, who all voted "nay."

2) Voted against the nomination of Brian Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge (on his second try), but only after being one of 12 Democrats to vote for cloture on his nomination yesterday. He voted for Kavanaugh before he voted against him, just like with Alito and the bankruptcy bill.

Ned Lamont has stated he would have "led the fight" against Alito and right-wing judicial nominations.

Heckuva job so far today, Joe.

Friday Morning Round-Up

Thursday, May 25, 2006


Agree to Disagree?

From a July 2004 press conference announcing the reincarnation of the neoconservative Committee on the Present Danger (which is honoring Lieberman, their honorary co-chair, in D.C. tonight):

...Lieberman said the purpose of the new group was "to form a bipartisan citizens’ army, which is ready to fight a war of ideas against our Islamist terrorist enemies, and to send a clear signal that their strategy to deceive, demoralize and divide America will not succeed."

I guess those of us who disagreed with Lieberman on the war were just falling prey to the terrorists' strategy of deception. Either that or we were traitors.

That's a long way from Joe's current line of "let's agree to disagree" on the war.

Enron Execs Found Guilty

Lay and Skilling convicted on fraud and conspiracy, will go to prison.

Meanwhile, "Enron's twin brother" is now Lieberman's 7th biggest corporate donor this cycle.

Lieberman to be Honored by Neocons Tonight

He once said "some of my best friends are neocons." And those friends are honoring him tonight at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Sens. Lieberman and Kyl (R-AZ), honorary co-chairs of the resurrected Committee on the Present Danger, will reportedly be honored with the group's first annual "statesman award" tonight:

"The Statesman Award will be given each year to a person or persons who have exemplified statesmanship and thoughtful leadership in support of the nation's security. Senators Lieberman and Kyl certainly fit that description," said R. James Woolsey, co-Chairman of the Committee.

Who is this group? An Alternet article from 2004 sheds some light:

Chaired by former CIA director James Woolsey, the reborn Committee has 49 members in all, including many well known hawks and neoconservatives affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute (Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Danielle Pletka, Joshua Muravchik, Laurie Mylroie, Newt Gingrich, Michael Rubin), former Attorney General Edwin Meese, Victor Davis Hanson of Stanford's Hoover Institution, Norm Podhoretz of Commentary fame, Charles Kupperman of Boeing Missile Defense Systems, former Reagan official Jack Kemp, former Congressional staffer-turned-lobbyist and Project for the New American Century board member Randy Scheunemann; and several anti-arms control hawks – Henry Cooper, Jim Woolsey himself, Kenneth Adelman, Max Kampelman [founder of the Committee's 1976 iteration] – reminiscent of the Committee's earlier two incarnations.

And what is their purpose?

So, what then, are the Committee's real goals? They seem to be twofold: First, to broaden the "war on terror" in the American public mind beyond al-Qaeda, targeting a vast network of interlinked "Islamist-jihadist" terror groups worldwide, including Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and their state sponsors, and to think about this war on terror not just from the standpoint of the US as the potential victim, but of key US allies as being potential victims.

The second goal appears to be to lobby influential American policymakers to support a US defense posture and weapons programs that Committee members believe would benefit the security of both the US and key allies, such as Israel.

Not all conservatives are ready to embrace this essentially neoconservative, if bipartisan Committee.

Not all conservatives were ready, but Joe Lieberman certainly was when he co-wrote (with Sen. Kyl) a Washington Post op-ed introducing the group in July 2004.

Anyway, good for Joe. He could use a break, some time among his real friends.

I'm sure he will get an infinitely warmer reception from the leading neoconservative ideologues in D.C. tonight than he received from the members of his own party in his own state in Hartford on Friday night.

Update: Check out Joe's comments from a July 2004 press conference announcing the reincarnation of CPD.

Thursday Morning Round-Up

Wednesday, May 24, 2006


Press Conference

Paul Bass has a good write-up at the New Haven Independent. Sounds like Ned emerged from his first trial-by-fire without too many scars.

He challenged Lieberman to a spending cap, to which Joe's campaign hemmed and hawed:

Contacted afterwards, Lieberman spokesman Sean Smith said, "We'll talk about debates later. We're certainly anticipating entering into discussions with their campaign on the debate issue. I expect voters to see the two candidates together."

Smith also responded to the proposed cap on raising and spending money.

"Look," he said. "We're open to thinking about this proposal. It would have to include personal contribution limits, too."

"That's them trying to make an issue of Ned giving money instead of all the money they've taken from Republican lobbyists," countered Lamont manager Swan. But, Swan said, "I'll take them up on. They've already raised $7 million. Let's cap spending right there."

Sounds like a generous deal to offer Lieberman in order to get him to stop his whining about Ned's finances.

Joe after all campaigned for multimillionaire self-funding candidates in 2000 and wrote in his book that "There is nothing wrong with going after your opponent’s voting record or any other evidence of negligence in his public life, but digging into his bank account... is wrong."

Bass also points out the biggest difference between the two candidates so far - one says he is now and will remain a Democrat, the other will say no such thing:

The most striking difference between the two press conferences: Lieberman wouldn't commit to supporting the Democratic candidate in November. He's leaving open the possibility of running as an independent if Lamont wins the primary. Lamont Wednesday promised to support Lieberman if Lieberman wins.


DFA Raises

And puts up a $50,000 bat, which is already up to over $45,000 from over 1,080 contribtions. That's an average contribution of about $41 per person.

Ned will also be on DFA's Blog for America for a live discussion tomorrow, Thursday, at noon.

And the official blog has more on today's press conference.

Moving On

My Left Nutmeg has the full text of both the Ned Lamont and the Joe Lieberman "stand-in" emails going out to MoveOn members in CT asking them for their votes in the organization's online "primary."

They really should have tried to get Sean Hannity as a stand-in for Joe.

Full text of Lamont's MoveOn email below the fold:

Dear MoveOn member,

The race for U.S. Senate in Connecticut is a fight for the heart and soul of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party. As we stand on the brink of a majority in Congress for the first time in over a decade, Democrats need to stand up for our progressive values and provide a clear contrast between our party and the Bush Adminstration. Unfortunately, Joe Lieberman has gone out of his way to undermine progressives on issue after issue. I invite you to watch a short video introduction about our campaign's historic effort. You can watch the video by visiting:


Joe Lieberman thinks we challenge President Bush's failed leadership in Iraq "at our nation's peril." I believe our troops should begin heading home and allow the Iraqi people to take control of their own destiny. It's time to stop spending $250 million a day in Iraq and start re-investing in our needs here at home. However, Iraq is not the only reason I have decided to challenge Senator Lieberman in the primary. From his stands on Terri Schiavo and domestic spying, his vote for the president's energy policy and against the filibuster of Samuel Alito, Joe Lieberman's wrong-headed votes and rhetoric are not simply individual instances of principled difference of opinion. He consistently repeats Republican talking points on television talk shows and takes pride in repudiating his own party and its values. In the last few years he's made a career of being "George Bush's favorite Democrat," and the time has come for the people of Connecticut to tell him that that career is over.

Here's what I stand for:

I believe quality, affordable healthcare is a right, not a privilege, and should be assured to every American.

I support a comprehensive approach to clean, sustainable energy independence: research into new technologies, higher fuel efficiency standards, incentives for conservation, and investment in clean energy alternatives.

I believe we must never compromise basic Constitutional liberties. If the president is found to have broken the law by ordering unprecedented, widespread domestic spying, he should be held accountable. The American people should never be asked to waive their rights with their flags.

I absolutely support a woman's right to complete and appropriate health care and to reproductive freedom. While Joe Lieberman would allow some hospitals to deny emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault, I will fight to make the morning after pill available over the counter, emergency contraception available to all rape victims, and support the nomination and appointment of pro-choice judges.

To find out more about my campaign or to read my positions on the issues please visit:


Our campaign is about two-way communication, citizen participation, and bringing a fresh outside-the-box thinking to politics. That's my way of doing business, and grassroots Democrats recognize campaigns like ours are the only way to reclaim the country for ordinary Americans. Once upon a time, Joe Lieberman accepted the Democratic Party nomination for Vice President of the United States. Today, he won't even promise he'll run as a Democrat in this U.S. Senate race. The choice for MoveOn members couldn't be more clear. I hope you'll join my campaign.


Ned Lamont
Candidate for U.S. Senate
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://political.moveon.org/ Authorized by Ned Lamont for Senate.


Changing His Tune on Multimillionaires

It turns out Jon Corzine, who ended up spending a record $68 million of his own money to win his senate race in 2000, wasn't the only multimillionaire candidate for whom Joe Lieberman has recently campaigned.

In 2000, he had this to say about Maria Cantwell (D-WA) at a campaign stop in Washington state (from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 6, 2000, p. A1):

While he is a personal friend of [then-incumbent GOP Sen. Slade] Gorton, Lieberman warmly embraced Cantwell's candidacy last night.

"She is the right person at the right time," he said. "She combines extraordinary experience in the private sector and an outstanding record in the public sector."

Cantwell ended up spending over $10 million of her own money to win her senate seat.

Six years ago, Joe had no problem with candidates self-funding. Now, suddenly, it's an issue. Right.

In the meantime, Ned Lamont continues to rake in small contributions from the grassroots, raising over $35,000 from over 825 individuals through DFA.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006


Tuesday Night Round-Up


Survey USA May Numbers

The latest SUSA tracking poll is out (conducted on 5/15, well before the convention), and there's not much movement, which is bad news for Lieberman:


Joe Cuts and Runs

Lieberman backs out of the MoveOn online "primary" without explanation:

After initially agreeing, Senator Lieberman has declined our invitation to participate in the MoveOn.org Political Action online primary for U.S. Senate in Connecticut.

We invited both candidates to send an e-mail to MoveOn members in Connecticut as part of our endorsement process. When we spoke last Thursday, the Lieberman campaign agreed to submit an e-mail from the senator or a surrogate as they did during our 2004 online presidential primary. We received notice after 5 PM last night that they would not submit an e-mail to MoveOn members for the primary.

The online primary will go forward. We want our members to have the opportunity to hear a case for endorsement from both the Lieberman and Lamont camps, and we hope to provide a stand-in for the senator.

Meanwhile, DFA members have contributed over $19,000 to Ned Lamont's campaign in the last 4 hours.


Joe Lieberman was for "buying" senate seats before he was against it:

The issue of Mr. Corzine's finances remains salient largely because he continues to spend at an unprecedented pace. After breaking the record for a Senate race by paying out $35 million in the primary, Mr. Corzine has nearly reached the $50 million mark already, The Associated Press reported today....

Mr. Corzine, meanwhile, campaigned today with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut in Union County, Mr. Franks's base, focusing on Vice President Al Gore's proposal for prescription drug benefits under Medicare.

- "As Corzine Buys More Airtime in Senate Race, Franks Takes Attack to Street," New York Times, Sept. 27, 2000.


DFA "Enthusiastically" Endorses Lamont

Hot off the presses:

Today, Democracy For America enthusiastically endorsed Ned Lamont in his run for United States Senate against incumbent Joseph Lieberman. Lamont surprised the pundits and Senator Lieberman with a strong showing at the Connecticut Democratic Party Convention on Friday and earned a spot on the primary ballot. The primary will be August 8.

“Ned Lamont has been loud and clear about America’s position in Iraq and world affairs, one of the most important concerns for voters,” said Jim Dean, Chair for Democracy for America. “Senator Lieberman has been a broken record supporting broken policies.”

Democracy for America will help raise money, media, and volunteers for Lamont’s campaign from across the nation.

DFA has set a fundraising goal of $25,000 from 500 donors today. Game on.

Click "read more" for the full text of Jim Dean's email being sent to DFA members:

For years, Joe Lieberman has supported President Bush on issue after issue. He supported Bush's crusade to dismantle Social Security and he folded on the nominations of Justices Roberts and Alito. Lieberman voted for the invasion of Iraq and he continues to stand in the way of real solutions that will bring our troops home. He has even supported attempts to label criticism of the war as unpatriotic. Last winter, he said, "it is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

On Friday, Connecticut Democrats said "enough." The Connecticut Democratic Convention was the first opportunity for an open vote between Joe Lieberman and upstart challenger Ned Lamont. With the process heavily stacked toward insiders, Lamont was expected to collect just a handful of votes. Instead, he shocked the establishment and won twice the number of votes he needed to qualify for the August primary ballot.

Ned Lamont has won the support of DFA members across Connecticut and now he's won a place on the ballot to challenge Joe Lieberman. When he's elected in November, Ned will oppose the Bush administration's misguided policies and he'll stand with other Democrats for clean government, universal healthcare, and a moral foreign policy. I urge you to join me in supporting Ned Lamont today:


Joe Lieberman has won strong support from Republicans. Vice President Cheney calls him "a fine U.S. Senator." Republican Congressman Chris Shays and Fox News Commentator Sean Hannity have both endorsed him. Even President Bush loves Lieberman -- there are rumors he has been considered for a post in Bush's cabinet. Is that the kind of Democrat that we want in Washington?

Ned Lamont won't have any Washington Republicans fighting for him. He's only going to win through thousands of grassroots donations from DFA members like you. We need to show Ned that the grassroots will stand with him. With your help, our goal is to raise $25,000 from 500 donors today. Can you make a donation of $100, $50, or even $25 to make it


Ned will be a progressive voice in the Senate. He'll speak out against the destructive Bush administration policies that threaten our moral and economic future, our civil liberties, and our nation's security. He has opposed the Iraq War since the beginning and he'll advocate a new direction in Iraq. Let's make it happen.


Jim Dean



Another Major Endorsement Today?

Stay tuned...

Update: In the meantime, Ned Lamont is on the Diane Rehm show on NPR right now (archive up later), with a panel discussing Iraq. Also scheduled to be on the show is Chris Shays.

Monday, May 22, 2006


Another Republican For Joe

To paraphrase El Guapo, "What is happening around here today? Are pro-Joe Republicans falling from the sky?"

Joe Lieberman continues to face a fight for re-election because he has stood for principle, pure and simple. While others have retreated, Joe realizes that defeat in Iraq would be disastrous to America and to the Iraqi people.

Joe Lieberman continues to face a fight for re-election because he has strongly supported policies that have been disastrous to America and to the Iraqi people.

...a clear and unmistakable majority of the delegates of the Connecticut Democratic Party delegates stood with Joe because they appreciate his integrity and recognize his progressive record.

An unclear and unenthusiastic majority of the delegates of the Connecticut Democratic Party stood with Joe because they were afraid of payback from Boss Lieberman and his machine. Many stayed home rather than come to Hartford and feel forced to vote for him. In a secret ballot, Ned Lamont would likely have won.

Unlike his opponent, Joe didn't just recently get involved in the fight for civil rights and the environment.

Unlike his opponent, Ned didn't just recently vote for Bush's disasterous energy bill, or to allow a Justice Alito, or try to find a "compromise "with Bush on Social Security.

And, when will the press focus on the fact that Mr. Lamont chose a co-star for his first commercial who once denigrated the deaths of Americans at the hands of terrorists?

Ah, so the sliming of Kos begins. We'll hear it from Joe's mouth next.

Joementum, The Sequel

“I'm going to be the winner of the primary... so I will support the winner.”

- Joe Lieberman today, still refusing to rule out an Independent run to the New Haven Independent (hat tip sufi.)

Although if he cuts-and-runs any time soon, this quote will definitely come back to haunt him.

Ask Sen. Lieberman to pledge to stay in the Democratic party.

This Week

Listen to Ned:

Then email your friends and family about the MoveOn/DFA "primaries" coming up later this week. (Only CT members of either organization will be able to take part.)

Pissing Off All The Right People

(Front-paged at MyDD.)

First the right-wing blogosphere, then the Wall St. Journal editorial board, and now the uber-D.C. insider Stuart Rothenberg are all hysterical about the fact that Connecticut Democrats just don't seem to like their best friend Joe Lieberman that much anymore:

It doesn't seem to matter to those angry Democrats, or to Lamont, that Lieberman is widely respected for his thoughtfulness, integrity, civility and intellect. Or his overall voting record....

It isn't just that Lieberman is a centrist, however, that makes the primary challenge to him unseemly. Not all centrists deserve to be re-elected any more than all liberals or all conservatives do. Rather, it's the Connecticut Democrat's stature and character that, in another day, would make a primary challenge to him by a former Greenwich selectman laughable....

Krugman already ably debunked the "Joe as centrist" myth earlier today.

But when 33.4% of party insiders in a roll call vote are willing to put their names forward against a sitting senator, it's pretty tough to claim he is "widely respected" anymore.

Obviously, Rothenberg wasn't talking about the feeling among Joe Lieberman's constituents, or even among his party. He was talking about the prevalent feeling in the GOP-dominated D.C. punditocracy.

You know, Lieberman's real "base."

That all being said, Rothenberg's contempt for the democratic process throughout the entire article is absolutely disgusting. Not even the most popular incumbent should be immune from a primary challenge. We need more challenges, not fewer. No, Rothenberg isn't spilling pixels on this because someone had the gall to run against an incumbent senator. Rather, he's furious that someone like Ned Lamont is having so much success... and like his insider buddies, he sees what might be coming in August and he's scared to death of it.

If the argument for re-electing Joe turns into "vote for him because D.C. insiders and Republicans think he's swell," then winning in August will be much easier than I thought.

WSJ Goes Off the Deep End

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal editorial board goes off the deep end defending Bush's failed and unpopular Iraq policy in the wake of the events of Friday (McCain's reception in NYC and Lieberman's rejection in Hartford):

Take Connecticut, where the left is targeting Mr. Lieberman for political extinction because of his pro-war views. Their vehicle is Mr. Lamont, a rich Greenwich businessman who decided to run after the Senator wrote an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal supporting U.S. policy in Iraq. Mr. Lamont--who was featured in our Weekend Interview on May 13--needed 15% of the delegates to get a place on the primary ballot, but in the event rolled up 33%....

The left's larger goal is to turn the Democratic Party solidly against the war on terror, and especially against its Iraq and Iran fronts. Mr. Lamont's performance will be noticed by Democratic Presidential hopefuls, some of whom (Al Gore, John Kerry) are already maneuvering to get to Hillary Rodham Clinton's antiwar left. Well before 2008, this passion will also drive sentiment among Democrats on Capitol Hill. If they recapture either the House or the Senate this fall, a legislative drive to withdraw from Iraq cannot be ruled out.

We doubt all of this will help Democrats with the larger electorate, which whatever its doubts about Iraq does not want a precipitous surrender. Americans haven't trusted a liberal Democrat with the White House during wartime since Vietnam, which is when the seeds of the current antiwar rage were planted. The great mistake that leading Democrats and anti-Communist liberals made during Vietnam was not speaking up against a left that was demanding retreat and sneering at our war heroes. Will any Democrat speak up now?

Refuting these hysterical (and insulting) straw-man arguments and complete misreadings of public opinion doesn't even seem necesssary.

The more interesting question is this: why do the Wall Street Journal, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Chris Shays, the right-wing blogosphere, and other influential Republican voices feel so invested in defending Lieberman in what is a closed Democratic primary?

Strategically, if they really wanted Joe to win (and I understand why they would, he is George Bush's Favorite Democrat after all), they'd be better off keeping their mouths shut.

As it is, their frantic defense of Lieberman every time Ned Lamont makes a ripple of news in this race only helps Ned's case.

Sunday, May 21, 2006



Takes on Joe the "centrist":

Mr. Lieberman's defenders would have you believe that his increasingly unpopular positions reflect his principles. But his Bushlike inability to face reality on Iraq looks less like a stand on principle than the behavior of a narcissist who can't admit error. And the common theme in Mr. Lieberman's positions seems to be this: In each case he has taken the stand that is most likely to get him on TV.

You see, the talking-head circuit loves centrists. But a centrist, as defined inside the Beltway, doesn't mean someone whose views are actually in the center, as judged by public opinion.

Instead, a Democrat is considered centrist to the extent that he does what Mr. Lieberman does: lends his support to Republican talking points, even if those talking points don't correspond at all to what most of the public wants or believes.

But this "center" cannot hold. And that's the larger lesson of what happened Friday. Mr. Lieberman has been playing to a Washington echo chamber that is increasingly out of touch with the country's real concerns. The nation, which rallied around Mr. Bush after 9/11 simply because he was there, has moved on — and it has left Mr. Lieberman behind.


The Big Picture

Just got back from the Crashing the Gate book-signing in New Haven - it was great to see such a huge and enthusiastic turnout. The event really got me thinking about the big picture surrounding this race. Here are two takes on this from this weekend:

David Sirota writes a wide-ranging piece which touches on Lamont in the context of a national progressive movement that is rapidly gaining steam in 2006:

The same thing is happening on Iraq. In Connecticut, first-time statewide candidate Ned Lamont (D) exceeded steep expectations and dramatically vaulted onto the primary ballot to challenge Sen. Joe Lieberman - the guy who has spent the last three years making headlines as the chief Senate advocate for the Iraq War, and chief attacker of those who have opposed it. Lieberman and his corporate-funded sponsors at the Democratic Leadership Council in Washington are now in an apoplectic frenzy, frothing like rabid dogs to national reporters, complaining about their plight, fearing that the ordinary citizens they so despise have broken down the palace gates. They should be afraid - we have broken in, and come primary day in August, we're headed for the throne room to depose Lieberman.

And Stirling Newberry looks at Lieberman's pathetic showing at the convention and McCain's embarrassing one at the New School's commencement and sees them representing a fundamental shift:

Yesterday, the war died. Not because of the acceptance of an incomplete cabinet for a weak government in Iraq, even as the fatalities mount. But because two of its most arrogant and outspoken proponets suffered humiliations - and they bounced back by proving that the war was all about the people who ordered it, and not about the realities of the situation.


Sunday News Round-Up

Atom secrets, secret leaflet
Have the boys found the leak yet?
The molehill sets the wheel in motion
His downfall picks up locomotion

The people must have something good to read on a Sunday!

- The Clash, "The Leader"