mcjoan makes an excellent point about Joe Lieberman's sudden fondness for the days of party bosses and machine politics:

What Lieberman is conveniently forgetting in this story is that for old-time party bosses, party discipline was job one. Chances are his hero Bailey, that anti-primary Democrat, would have pulled Lieberman from the ticket for his ongoing betrayal of the Democratic Party, his undying support for Bush and the Iraq War, and his trashing of Democrats who disagree with him.

Lieberman says he wishes to celebrate diversity of opinion, as do we all. But somehow Lieberman's idea of diversity of opinion relates only to him disagreeing with other Democrats in the Senate. That diversity of opinion, he seems to say, should be celebrated but not challenged.

Well, Joe, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a contest of ideas without the actual contest. And you can't dodge your accountability to the Democratic voters of Connecticut. You want to celebrate diversity of opinion within the party? There's no better way to do it than in a good old-fashioned primary race.

What she said.

Get out and meet Ned!

• Fairfield County Gay Pride Celebration, Westport, today, 1pm.


• Fairfield County Irish Festival, Trumbull, today, 3pm.


• Branford Day Fair>, Branford, Sunday, 12:30pm. (Update: As far as I can tell, Ned was at this event on Saturday, not Sunday).

Don't know how I possibly missed this in Broder's piece:

"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman said, "but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."

When candidates in Connecticut didn't have to deal with inconvenient things like elections:

In an interview, Lieberman sounded a note of nostalgia for the old days. "John Bailey genuinely believed that primaries were not only divisive but often didn't pass the ultimate test of finding the candidate who could win," he said. If Bailey were alive, his attitude would be, "We have an incumbent senator who is quite popular in the state; we have an opportunity to elect three Democratic congressional challengers; we have a very tough race for governor. Why would we want to challenge an incumbent senator who could lead the other candidates to victory?"

It's amazing how much this man whines about having to make his case to the voters of Connecticut. You'd think he was the first incumbent ever to face a primary challenge.

The Broder article contains some other great bits, such as Lieberman talking about facing a primary challenge "from the left":

"I didn't know who the challenger would be, but I felt there was a very good possibility this would happen," he said. "I told people at my fundraisers last year there could well be a challenge from the left of the party...

This, of course, on the same day he released a painfully bad commercial calling Ned Lamont a Republican.

And while he may stay in the party until the day of the debate on July 6th, it certainly sounds like this is a man planning on bolting soon thereafter if things don't turn around for him:

He says he knows of no effort to gather signatures now. But he also says, "I want to put my whole record before the whole voting population of Connecticut" -- clearly implying an independent run if he loses to Lamont in August.

Poor Joe. He's lost every real campaign he's had to run since 1988... first 2000, then 2004. Now he's going to cut and run from a race in 2006 where he had all of the advantages in the world.

He's just not up to the fight anymore.

No wonder the old days are starting to look so good to him.

(Bumped.) I don't get a dime from anyone for running this site, nor have I ever asked for anything. Until now.

If you appreciate the work LamontBlog has been doing since February covering this race, I would love it if you would show that appreciation by chipping in a few dollars to LamontBlog's new personal fundraising page for Ned Lamont. You can see the progress on the boat graphic on the left.

All the contributions will go straight into building up this grassroots campaign so it will win in August and then again in November.

So please, especially if you haven't already, contribute.

The list of Democrats declaring that they will refuse to bolt the party along with Joe Lieberman is growing. This statement from Chris Murphy's campaign was forwarded to me:

"Chris Murphy, and this campaign, will support the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate after the primary."

Chris, running against Nancy Johnson in CT-5, joins gubernatorial candidates Dan Malloy and John DeStefano in stating clearly and for the record that they will support Ned Lamont if he wins the primary.

Lieberman finally gives in to Ned Lamont's challenge for a debate. Usually a big sign of weakness for an incumbent to agree to a debate with a challenger like this.

Does this mean Lieberman will still be a Democrat on July 6th? Or will he wait to see how the debate goes before deciding on jumping ship? So many questions...

"Lieberman's trying to show CT Dems he's not out of touch but he's showing them he's out of his mind."

- Josh Marshall on Lieberman's horrible ad.

Accused druglord Juan Marrero told the FBI that Shawn Fardy, a Democratic Town Committee member indicted last week on narcotics conspiracy charges, said he had a video of Mayor John M. Fabrizi using cocaine.

Responding to the allegation, the Bridgeport mayor offered a confession to "poor choices," but stopped short of admitting drug use.

Fabrizi seconded Lieberman's nomination at the convention in May:

• Bill O'Reilly endorses Lieberman.


• Connecticut teachers endorse Lamont.


• The Wall Street Journal tells Joe to bolt the party.


• Progressives tell Joe to stay in the party.


• The Courant reports on Lieberman's horrible ad.


• Spazeboy also has a great round-up.


• Update: Paul Bass unloads on Lieberman's horrible ad:
  

  The commercial evokes one that helped Lieberman first win his seat in 1988. That 1988 ad depicted the then-incumbent, Lowell Weicker, as a fat lazy bear who never showed up for votes in his third term in office. The ad was significant for two reasons: It inaugurated a new era in Connecticut of low-grade personal TV attack ads that belittle opponents, make fun of their appearance or magnify minor or out-of-context portions of their record. And, once he too was firmly ensconced in his third term in the Senate, Lieberman himself repeated Weicker's absentee record. Lieberman spent much of 2003 running for president--and away from his job as senator. He skipped 54 percent of all Senate votes that year. He was absent for every vote on 63 of the 115 days in which the Senate cast votes. According to one estimate, that meant the taxpayers overpaid Lieberman $38,828.79 in salary that year....
  
  The new ad brings another modern Beltway campaign attack mode to Connecticut: Bush adviser Karl Rove's strategy of taking your own weakness and turning it into your opponent's weakness instead, through relentless misrepresentation of facts.



• Genghis Conn concurs:
  

  It's pathetic. Joe Lieberman should be better than this. The image he's crafted for himself of a noble, conscience-driven statesman demands that he be better than this. People support Lieberman because they believe he's a good man. If he keeps slinging this kind of toxic mud, they may change their minds.

What a horrible ad.

And really mean, too.

Lowell Weicker is depicted as a beaten-up bear with a broken leg. The guy is 75 years old and just had knee replacement surgery last year.

You'd think stuff like that would be beneath a sitting senator. Not Joe.

Update: I do understand the context here, that Weicker is somehow still "licking his wounds" from 18 years ago (even though he was elected Governor after that). The ad is incredibly insensitive. But what do you expect from a senator who told rape victims to "take a short ride" to another hospital?

In a diary at My Left Nutmeg, gubernatorial candidate Dan Malloy said he will unconditionally support the Democratic candidate for senate in November:

*[new] It's a fair question (4.00 / 6)
Yes, I will support the winner of Senate primary, period.

Learn more about my campaign for Governor at danmalloy.com
by: Dan Malloy @ June 15, 2006 at 14:15:23 EST5EDT

Any word from DeStefano? Or the congressional candidates? Or DiNardo? Keep the updates coming.

Update: According to CTBlogger, DeStefano is a "yes." So now both gubernatorial candidates are on record saying they will support the Democratic candidate for senate in November.

Really, this shouldn't be an issue. It's an easy question, and as Malloy himself put it, a fair one. Where's Dodd on this?

(ConnecticutBlog has a fuller list of people to contact, including state senators.)

Update 2: Hearing some more names of officials who are committing to support Ned over Joe if Ned wins the primary. And it's worthwhile to note that Malloy is a proud member of the DLC.

There's been a huge outpouring of disappointment with Sen. Schumer's statement that the DSCC would support Joe Lieberman even if he bolted the party. Right now, all signs are pointing to Joe bolting sometime soon.

It's time to demand that local Democratic officials, candidates, and public servants be honest with their constituents and state clearly for the record whether or not they will support their party in November.

But we need your help.

CTBlogger will be compiling a list of prominent CT Dems and their answers to this simple question: Will you support the Democratic candidate for Senate in November?

Contact your local Democratic officials, state officials, prominent party members, and current candidates for office and let us know what their responses are. You can post it in the comments to this thread or email it to me or CTBlogger, and we will compile the list.

Click "read more" for a starting list of officials and their contact info. Contact your local state senators, state reps, etc. too:

John DeStefano - Governor - candidate
203-752-0545

Dan Malloy - Governor - candidate
203-978-9019 dan@danmalloy.com

Kevin Sullivan - Lt. Governor
860-524-7384 ltgovernor.sullivan@ct.gov

Susan Bysiewicz - Secretary of State
860-509-6200

Denise Nappier - State Treasurer
800-618-3404 state.treasurer@po.state.ct.us

Nancy Wyman - State Comptroller
860-702-3300 comptroller.wyman@po.state.ct.us

Dick Blumenthal - Attorney General
860-808-5318 attorney.general@po.state.ct.us

Christopher J. Dodd - Senator
860-258-6940

John B. Larson - Congress
860-278-8888

Joe Courtney - Congress - candidate
860-577-8283

Rosa L. DeLauro - Congress
203-497-8034

Diane G. Farrell - Congress - candidate
203-227-5447

Chris Murphy - Congress - candidate
860-223-5522 campaign@murphyforcongress.org

"Death Toll in Iraq Reaches 2,500 U.S. Military, Pentagon Says."



If we leave it up to Joe Lieberman and President Bush, we will be in Iraq for at least three more years:

We're talking about 2006, 7, 8... that's three years. And I believe that a lot of very good things can happen in three years in Iraq that ideally would allow us to remove every American soldier who's there today.

• You can now "rock the boat" yourself by starting your own personal fundraising page at NedLamont.com. Take a look at Spazeboy's post on his excellent new blog for an example of how this works.


• The Courant reports on Ned's rock-star reception in D.C. yesterday:
  

  It's one thing to be the darling of the liberal bloggers; it's another to pull bodies into a room.
  
  Ned Lamont did that Wednesday as 350 progressive activists crammed a hotel meeting room to witness the Senate challenger's first big national appearance.
  
  After basking in three standing ovations before, during and after his nine-minute speech Wednesday, Lamont was asked by his new-found fans to pose for pictures.



• Mark Pazniokas at the Courant writes about the dual teachers union endorsement of Ned today.


• DemFromCT of The Next Hurrah discusses Lieberman's horrible campaign and predicts a Lamont win.


• Oliver Willis reflects the still-growing firestorm in the blogs about Chuck Schumer's statement that the DSCC would not necessarily support the Democratic candidate in November. If this comes to pass, it is going to hurt Chuck, the DSCC, and the national party a hell of a lot more than it will hurt Ned Lamont.

Giving a big middle finger to Connecticut Democrats, Chuck Schumer said today that the DSCC would not necessarily support the Democratic candidate for Senate in November.

The DSCC is now officially just an incumbent protection racket. It has nothing to do with any party.

I don't think Chuck really understands what he would be getting himself and the party into if he were to follow through with this.

More weirdos:

On the heels of the Connecticut chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, the Connecticut Education Association endorsed Ned Lamont today. There will be a press conference tomorrow officially announcing the support: AFT boasts 26,000 members including Hartford teachers, paraprofessionals and educational personnel. Connecticut Education Association (CEA) represents more than 36,000 members in Connecticut.

And Eddie from the campaign catches even more weirdos in action:

Political Wire has the scoop.

Update: Kos has more:

Rasmussen. 6/12. MoE 7(!) (4/27 results)

Lieberman 46 (51)
Lamont 40 (31)

Sign the letter demanding that Sen. Lieberman abide by the results of the primary and support the Democratic candidate in November.

• A banner and link for Ned Lamont are now up at the state central website. Symbolic, perhaps, of the party establishment realizing he will soon be the only Democrat running for senate. (Hat tip Jon K).


• Swing State Project takes a fresh look at the similarities between Lamont-Lieberman and Specter-Toomey. They also report on the VA-SEN primary results last night, where Jim Webb won and will take on George Allen in November. Lieberman can't be too happy about Webb winning, and having to deal with a another strong pro-military, anti-Iraq war voice in the national media this summer.


• Howie Klein wonders if Joe has "lost his marbles":
  

  A friend of mine in Hartford, a clinical psychologist, called me yesterday evening and told me she had never seen a clearer case of projection in her career. "It has really torn into his psyche over the last month that more and more Democrats have seen him categorically exposed as a traitor. Everyone knew he was Bush's #1 ally when it came to the brutal occupation of Iraq but now everyone is connecting the dots and seeing that Lieberman is just a Republican in disguise. People who weren't sure who Sam Alito was last month now know that it was because of Lieberman's plotting with the GOP that he was confirmed as a Supreme Court Judge. So what does he do? He accuses Lamont of exactly what he is and what has made people dislike and distrust him: being deceitful and being a Republican."



• Dennis Horgan at the Courant rakes Joe over the coals:
  

  In the battle between the Underdog and the Lapdog, the evidence mounts that the Joe Lieberman camp has not only lost touch with the senator's home state but with reality, too.



• Spazeboy has more on "Weirdos for Lamont," as do ATalbot at MLN, and this LTTE writer in the Courant:
  

  I rather resent the notion that opposing the party machine-endorsed candidate makes one a “weirdo,” but name-calling and mudslinging have been hallmarks of the Lieberman campaign strategy so far, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Nor would I be surprised should Sen. Lieberman show his true stripes and run as an independent after accusing Lamont of ruining the Democratic Party in Connecticut.

(Bumped.) Taegan Goddard reports:

Political Wire has learned that key allies of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) are making contingency plans for the three-term senator to run as an independent in this fall's U.S. Senate race in Connecticut.

Which Connecticut Democrats will support their party's candidate for senator after Lieberman abandons them? Dodd? Malloy? DeStefano? DeLauro? Larson? Murphy? Farrell? Courtney? DiNardo?

Let me know if you can find a statement on the record from any of these officials about unconditionally supporting the Democratic candidate for senate in November. If not, please try to contact them, as well as any other prominent local or state officials.

It's time to get the Connecticut Democratic party on the record on this.

Seems that way, from a report by "KCinDC" in the comments:

Lamont mentioned the "weirdos" comment at his fundraiser in a room packed with supporters coming from the Take Back America conference in DC tonight. It was great to meet him after following (and supporting) his campaign for so long. He was introduced by Tom Matzzie of MoveOn and Jim Dean of Democracy for America, and Atrios was present as well. People were overflowing into the hallway.

Just some more "weirdos" for Lamont (i.e., Connecticut teachers):

AFT Connecticut, the state’s second largest AFL-CIO union representing more than 26,000 professionals, including healthcare, higher education, and public employees, has endorsed Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate in Connecticut.

This endorsement came down to the issues of education and healthcare and the draining of resources from our state in order to fund the war in Iraq,” said Sharon Palmer, president of AFT Connecticut. “Ned Lamont understands these issues and agrees with our positions.”

• Tonight, Ned will attend a small-dollar fundraiser in D.C. hosted by the local DFA group.


• Tomorrow, Ned will be speaking at the Take Back America conference in D.C., on a panel with Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Tom Matzzie of MoveOn, and Ambassador Joe Wilson.


• Jane Hamsher reported yesterday on a blogger meeting with Harry Reid at the YearlyKos convention, and Harry's comments regarding Ned and the CT-SEN race:
  

  ...I said Ned is a genuinely good candidate, and Reid agreed. He said he’d met with Ned twice and liked him a lot. And as to the opposition we’ve been mounting against Joe? Reid said it to me twice, and he chose his words very carefully:
  
  It’s important for people to know that their actions have consequences.
  
  By which I took it to mean, from the context, that Lieberman’s actions have brought this on himself



• Kos also writes about Harry Reid's "Lieberman problem."

Well, I guess we have our answer.

Lieberman's campaign manager finally admits in no uncertain terms that his boss will not support the winner of the Democratic primary (major hat tip to Neal Fink):

"Are we going to support Ned Lamont? Ah, no! (laughs)..."

Listen to the mp3 here.

That's how prominent Lieberman backer and former Democratic state party chair John F. Droney, Jr. describes Connecticut primary voters in a Courant article today where he strongly urges Lieberman to leave the party:

"I think to be terrorized through the summer by an extremely small group of the Democratic Party, much less the voting population, is total insanity for a person who is a three-term senator," Droney said....

"Every single weirdo in the left wing will be there," Droney said. "That's what the Lamont strategy is all about."

Wait. I'm confused. I thought Ned was a Republican.

Update: By the way, here are a few of those "left wing weirdos":



Update 2: Welcome Americablog readers. Please be a true "left wing weirdo" and contribute to Ned Lamont's candidacy.

If you are the only candidate in the Democratic primary who has agreed to stay in the Democratic party and support the Democratic candidate in November, that means you are actually a Republican:

"If Joe Lieberman is considering abandoning the Democratic party, the people have a right to know it," said Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager. "Ned is agreeing to abide by the process and respect the choice of the people. Will Joe?"

Meanwhile, [Lieberman spokeswoman Marion] Steinfels tried to portray Lamont as leaning to the right, accusing him of voting with Republicans most of the time he served on the Greenwich Board of Selectmen.

"We feel Washington already has enough Republicans like Ned," she said.

Wow.

Update: It's the Marion Steinfels-Sean Smith Comedy Hour!

Smith said Lieberman would not promise to support Lamont, because the businessman voted frequently with Republicans as a local official in Greenwich.

"The only public record this guy has, he voted time and again like a Republican," Smith said. "Why would we support that?"

In a just-released radio ad now running across the state, Ned Lamont challenges Joe Lieberman to pledge to support the winner of the August 8th primary:

NED LAMONT: ...So I have a challenge for our junior senator. Joe, let's both go to the Democratic primary on August 8th, and let the people of Connecticut decide. I'll pledge to back you one hundred percent if you win. And for the good of the party, you'll pledge to support me one hundred percent if I'm victorious. What do you say Senator? May the best Democrat win. I'm Ned Lamont, I'm running for the U.S. Senate, and I approve this message.

What do you say, Senator?

Sign the letter, and add your voice to the those demanding Joe pledge to support the winner of the primary.

Joe went to another diner today. The New Haven Independent was there. Sounds like the campaign still isn't going so well:

"If you're Democrats, I need your help," he told two firefighters.

Do they deserve to know if Lieberman's making a party switch? Is there a date by which he'll make up his mind? "Not really," he responded, rushing out the diner door towards his tinted car. "I don't even think about it."

"I'll always be a Democrat, so I guess the best way to answer all these questions" is to win the primary, he concluded. Then he ducked into his car....

And also at the diner:

This table of diners contained seething criticism while speaking with Joe, only expressing concern about a "lack of values" and "lack of integrity" in Congress. "Are you going to stand up for your thoughts and vote your conscience? I know you haven't always done that in the past," charged the woman, who declined to give her name.

When Lieberman moved on to the next table, she said, "I am not supporting him — absolutely not."

Her husband, Nick DiGioia, chimed in. He used to support Lieberman, but sees the Democratic Party as moving away from the concerns of "the average guy." He sees the "erosion of real, meaningful wages" and health care. Democratic politicians are "more concerned about their electability" than issues affecting the working class, DiGioa said. "[Lieberman]'s really a moderate Republican. I'm voting principally against the incumbent – get some new blood in there."

Lieberman's campaign website hasn't been updated since May 19th, the day he won the party endorsement at the convention. That's over three weeks ago now.

Before that date, it had been updated pretty regularly.

In a Salon interview, Harry Reid says he "wouldn't want to embarrass" Joe Lieberman by revealing any theoretical private assurance he received from the senator about ruling out an independent run:

Did it bother you that Lieberman has indicated he'd run as an independent if he loses the Democratic primary -- or at least that he's leaving the door open to that?

He's never told me that. In fact, the letter I wrote for him said exactly the opposite.

Did you extract a promise that he wouldn't do that in exchange for your endorsement?

Well, anything I discussed with Joe was of a private nature, and I wouldn't want to embarrass him. I didn't extract anything.

Also in the interview, Reid mischaracterizes one of Lieberman's votes on Iraq, backing away from an earlier, harsher description of his ostracism from the party on the issue:

In December, when Lieberman was just back from a trip to Iraq and putting out an extraordinarily positive vision of progress in that country, you said that he was "alone ... literally alone" in his view, and that even Republicans didn't agree with him. Has he made it harder for the Democratic Party to take a stand, to be where it needs to be on Iraq?

I think that we, last December, did a good thing for the country when [Carl] Levin, [Joe] Biden, [Russ] Feingold, [Christopher] Dodd, Kerry, we worked out an amendment we were going to offer on the defense authorization bill that was the Democratic Senate's position [on Iraq]. And lo and behold, we were able to get 79 votes on that. What did that do? The law of the land today is that this year, 2006, will be a year of significant transition. That's the law. President Bush needs to live up to that law. And we as Democrats agreed with that, we got virtually every person to vote for it, including -- I'm confident that Lieberman voted for that. We may have lost maybe Ben Nelson, but I think we virtually got everybody.

But as Salon notes, this wasn't exactly how it went:

[Reid may be giving Lieberman more credit than he's due. The amendment introduced by Levin and backed by the other Democrats Reid mentioned said that 2006 should be "a period of significant transition" in Iraq, but it also called on the president to provide Congress with "a campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment" of U.S. troops. That amendment was defeated, 58-40, and Lieberman and Nelson were among those voting no. The amendment that won 79 votes -- including Lieberman's and Nelson's -- was an alternative proposed by Republican Sen. John Warner. Warner's amendment incorporated the "period of significant transition" language and much more from the Levin measure, but it did not include a requirement that the president provide Congress with "estimated dates" for pulling out troops. Six Democrats voted against the Warner amendment: Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Patrick Leahy.]

• The Courant printed four letters to the editor today in response to last weekend's blistering column by Paul Bass. They titled the section "No Lieberman Fans Here," because, apparently, they didn't receive even one single pro-Lieberman letter in response (at least not one they felt comfortable publishing). Some excerpts from the letters:
  

  "Let's hope the voting public doesn't believe Joe's vicious and misleading ads, and, instead, votes to put a real Democrat into the U.S. Senate."
  
  "As an ex-pat Connecticut Citizen (Woodbury), I wanted to tell you that was one of the best pieces on Joementum's duplicity I have ever seen. Nice stuff! Thanks!"
  
  "Your citations of Lieberman's past heinous acts which predated my interest in politics show me that his behavior was not something that changed recently..."
  
  "Your article was hands-down one of the best pieces of journalism I have read in the past five years. And believe me, I'm reading a lot."



• Steve Benen, writing at the Washington Monthly, talks about Lieberman's boneheaded campaign strategy of "keeping his options open":
  

  As a practical matter, I can appreciate Lieberman's dilemma. If he loses in the primary, Lieberman can very likely run a very competitive, if not successful, campaign as an independent. Indeed, the Quinnipiac poll shows him winning a three-way race fairly easily.
  
  But if, in the short term, Lieberman hopes to win over primary voters, talking openly about possibly abandoning his party strikes me as a spectacularly bad strategy. He is, in effect, telling Democratic voters, "I want to be the Democratic nominee, but my allegiance will disappear if you choose someone else." (For the record, Lamont has said he'll back Lieberman if the incumbent wins the primary.)

  
  It really is spectacularaly stupid for Lieberman to have actively kept the topic of his questionable party loyalty front-and-center in this campaign for over two months now. I can't think of any explanation other than sheer hubris combined with contempt for rank-and-file Democrats in the state.


• Scarce has uploaded a YouTube clip from today's "Meet The Press" appearance by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, where he discusses the Lamont-Lieberman race. A longer excerpt is available at Crooks and Liars.


• Atrios yesterday:
  

  If I were a potential presidential candidate looking for a way to jump start my campaign, get a bit of news, and get a bit of blogger support what I would do is be the first big name to endorse Ned Lamont.
  
  If I wasn't quite courageous enough to do it now I'd make sure that if Joe leaves the party I'd be the first person to run to the microphone to do it then.

Here's the full interview from yesterday by CTBlogger and CTBob: