You really can't make this stuff up (via an interview on WTIC mp3, hat tip mikect):

Ray: Then there was the "there you go again".

Joe: Yeah.

Ray: Well, OK.

Joe: Picking out the the oldies but goodies.

Ray: Well, of course, you know, the Washington Post or maybe it was one of the morons on the blogosphere, whatever, but they were talking about - they're not morons - but they were talking about, yeah, you see, see there you are, now you're actually turning into Ronald Reagan.

Joe: Well, he was a great President in many ways.

The Courant digs up some Greenwich officials from the early 90s, and finds Lieberman's charges - repeated in the debate - to be baseless and completely ridiculous:

"Most of the stuff we dealt with was the mundane stuff - parking signs, roads," said Republican John B. Margenot, who served as first selectman when Lamont was on the board. "There were no Democratic principles involved or Republican principles. I think it's kind of spurious that Lieberman raises the issue. It's a non-issue."

When asked if he viewed Lamont as a Republican, Margenot replied, "No, I wouldn't think that at all. He was more like a liberal Democrat."

Despite being labeled a "Greenwich millionaire" by Lieberman, Lamont is not known for flashing his wealth, does not live in one of the biggest houses in town and is known simply as just another neighbor in Greenwich, Republicans said....

"It's about running the town of Greenwich," [Greenwich Republican Sam] Romeo said Friday. "Greenwich is in its own world down here in the way we run things. It has nothing to do with politics, really."

Republican Chris Antonik, a former elected member of the town's representative town meeting and a current member of the Republican town committee, said, "Ned was a Democrat. I never even recall him acting like a Republican. He's not a Republican."

Really everything since the debate has been one big "round-up." But here's some more:

• Ned was on Air America this afternoon. The Resource is on top of it as usual.


• Come out and meet Ned this weekend! Saturday in East Hampton and the Sailfest in New London, Sunday at the Puerto Rican day parade in Bridgeport, a picnic in Southbury, and in West Hartford.


• The "War Room" at Salon has a fun but very difficult quiz: which quotes were from Bush last night, and which were from Lieberman? (Click through the ad to play for free). I only scored 5 out of 8, tying Tim.


• Philip Weiss weighs in at the NY Observer, talking more about the dubious relationship between Lieberman and "courage."


• Enigmatic Paradox argues that Lamont's main weakness in the debate - his lack of polish - was also his strength, showing him to be so obviously outside the mess in D.C. these days. Agreed.


• Just in: Lieberman to pledges to support "whichever party elects me." Says his "Plan C" is to "run in all 50 states." (Believed it for a second, right?)

Colin McEnroe:

For my part, I was horrified. I have known this man for decade, but the haughty, disdainful personality I saw up there was new to me. He really is offended by the idea that some puny upstart is trying to take what belongs, apparently, to him. Did you catch the moment at the end when Lamont stuck his hand out? Lieberman took it like it was made out of wolverine pus, dropped it after a nanosecond and barged over to greet his old friends from 30.

Ari Melber:

Lieberman actually channeled Bush throughout the debate. He echoed the White House spin on Iraq, arguing the only "choice is between helping the Iraqis achieve a free and independent Iraq or abandoning them and letting the terrorists take over." He trotted out baseless flip-flop charges, accusing Lamont of taking five different positions on the war. And when all else failed, Lieberman deployed the classic Bush-Rove tactic: project your own weakness on to your opponent. So he accused Lamont of the top grievances voters have against Lieberman: voting too often with Republicans, acting out of touch and prioritizing power over principle.

Digby:

I'm listening to the Lieberman-Lamont debate and if I were just tuning in with no knowledge of the players I would just assume that Lieberman was a conservative Republican, if not an actual member of the Bush administration. He's behaving like an arrogant, bullying thug.

Also last night, President Bush refused to rule out supporting Lieberman's independent candidacy.

On the debate:

David Silverman, writing for JTA, a Jewish news service, has quite the scoop about Jewish support for Ned Lamont. According to an internal poll, Ned is beating Joe Lieberman among Jewish voters in Connecticut:

But an internal Democratic poll of Connecticut Jews sees Lamont leading by 50 percent to 41 percent, JTA has learned. The sample was small, but the results were a dramatic departure from the 90-plus approval rating Lieberman scored among Jews after Al Gore named him as his running mate in 2000.

Connecticut Jews make up 111,000 of the state's 3.4 million people, or a little more than 3 percent of the population, according to the Jewish Virtual Library.

And I didn't think it was possible for Lieberman's right-hand man John Droney - who previously called all Lamont supporters "terrorizing" "left-wing weirdos" - to say something even more offensive. But check this out:

"I find the behavior of a large segment of the Jewish community to be reprehensible and outrageous," said John Droney, a former chairman of the state party who is advising Lieberman to run as an independent. "When he's in trouble like this, they all ought to rally to him. It's too bad that you have to listen to an Irish-American to realize that you've got to support your own home cooking."

"Reprehensible and outrageous." Wow.

It's obvious both Lieberman and Droney yearn for the days of machine politics when a candidate could count on his ethnic constituency for unified and unconditional support regardless of how much he screwed up in his job. Real democracy is a bitch for incumbents like Joe, isn't it. But for a non-Jew to scold Jewish voters like this for daring to support a candidate of their choice... that's what's really reprehensible and outrageous.

Via the official blog's comprehensive Claim vs. Fact roundup, some of the more egregious examples from last night:

• on Social Security:
  

  Claim #3 The fact is that I have opposed George Bush on most of the major policy initiatives of his administration, from tax cuts for the rich to privatizing Social Security.
  
  Fact: “Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., is undecided about the concept of using payroll taxes to fund private Social Security accounts, bringing to three the known number of Senate Democrats who have yet to publicly rule out the idea.”—In fact, after tremendous pressure, Senator Lieberman was the LAST Democratic Senator to come out against privatization.



• on Iraq:
  

  Claim #9: Let me repeat. I’m not for an open-ended commitment to Iraq.
  
  Fact: Senator Lieberman on CNN: “”We may, over the long term, with the consent of the new Iraqi government, establish some permanent bases in Iraq.”



• on what Lieberman's hero John Bailey would have thought about Joe bolting the party:
  

  Claim #11: Well, of course, the first thing Mr. Bailey would do is try to stop Mr. Lamont from hurting the Democratic Party’s chances of electing a Democratic senator who might help to make a Democratic majority in the Senate, who would help the three Democratic challenging candidates for the House of Representatives, who might help make the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.
  
  Fact: Since Mr. Bailey is no longer with us, we’ll have to use his words and not Senator Lieberman’s to best gauge how he would react. And in 1970, when Democratic Senator Dodd left the Democratic Party and ran as an Independent in the general, it was Mr. Bailey who said, “any action like this can’t help but hurt the party.” SOURCE, 1970 NYT .PDF



• on Ned's personal finances:
  

  Claim #12: Why would his wealth be a campaign issue to you? LIEBERMAN: Well, it’s part of who he is. But really, the point is who is he?
  
  Fact: From Senator Lieberman’s book, “In Praise of Public Life” (available for 1 cent on Amazon.com): “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 ... when these things have nothing to do with the performance of his public duties-past, present, or future-is wrong.”

• Did Lieberman really storm out of the studio early and refuse to thank Ned Lamont after the debate? If true, how small of this "principled" man. But how expected, too.


• Lots of video of the debate and post-debate TV coverage at Spazeboy.net and YouTube as well as PoliticsTV.


• The HQ has some rapid response up. Joe spouted so much crap in the debate, it will be hard to get to it all.


• Positive reaction from Reuters:
  

  Lieberman, who announced on Monday he would run for reelection as an independent if he loses his party's August primary, appeared on the defensive for much of the debate against Democratic rival Ned Lamont, a self-financed neophyte.



• Positive reaction from John Harwood of the Wall St. Journal on MSNBC:
  

  ...You gotta say, Ned Lamont was a very polished and effective performer for somebody who lacks experience running against somebody who ran for President…



• True words: "Real Men Hold Public Forums! (not fake diner tours)"

Aside from the mischaracterizations and untruths spouted by Joe (plenty of time to address those later), some thoughts:

1. Why did Lieberman feel the need to talk over and interrupt Ned the entire debate? The arrogance constantly emanating from the right-hand side of the screen was really a little much, even for Joe. Check out some of these comments from viewers at NBC30's website (hat tip to Eric):

"Every time Senator Lieberman chose to interrupt the debate and shout over Mr. Lamont, I was reminded what the real problem is... the Senator refuses to listen to Democrats, to our questions, to our answers, and our advice." - katgw

"(Senator Lieberman) seemed overly defensive (almost scared), was somewhat "disrespectful" in continuing to talk through the rebuttals and not let Ned speak (not the word I really want, but close enough), and appeared to just be a grumpy old man. Maybe we don't fully know Lamont after this debate, but I sure learned a lot of Lieberman. And I don't think I like it." - easelmmc

"I thought that Ned came across like a real person while Joe seemed liked the entitled DC Aristocrat. Joe's bullying tactics only fortified the opinion I had before watching the debate." - EnricoM

2. It's obvious Joe doesn't care about winning over Democrats, or about the August primary. He mentioned Schlesinger multiple times tonight, recycled a tired Reagan line, and staunchly defended his support of earmarks, the Bush-Cheney Iraq policy, and the Bush-Cheney energy policy. He's aiming for November, but he'll surely use the rest of July and August to spend his millions on negative ads against Ned.

3. Ned's last few lines about Weicker were great. Lieberman had no answer for them.

4. Joe kept on asking "Who is Ned Lamont?" throughout the debate, trying to run away from his own 18-year record. But I think Connecticut has a much better idea of who Ned is tonight. And that's not good news for Joe.

5. Compare the Joe in this debate - angry, arrogant, attacking Joe - with the 2000 VP debate vs. Cheney - agreeable, docile, timid Joe. And tell me which you thought was for a senate primary and which one was a presidential general election. Why is Joe more angry at Ned Lamont than he was at Dick Cheney?

Update: At MSNBC, Bob Shrum, Tom Curry, and Ned himself seem to all agree:

Shrum: "I wish Joe Lieberman had been this aggressive against Dick Cheney in 2000. It may not work in a Democratic primary, but it would've worked in that general election."

When I said the tone seemed quite different from the 2000 debate Lieberman had with vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney, Lamont, seeming somewhat abashed, remarked, "That's what I should have said!" -- meaning he should have said it during the debate.

Lamont added, "When it's debating a Republican, it's like a tea party," but "when he's debating a Democrat he shows his passionate juices."

CTBlogger was there too, with a few dozen other enthusiastic Lamont supporters. Joe's arrogance and desperation were projected on a big screen for all to see:







More soon. Check out the Debate HQ at the official blog for more reaction in the interim.

The official blog has everything covered.

Go there.

I'll be in South Norwalk to liveblog (if possible) the watch party. If not, check back for a report as soon as possible after the debate tonight.

Brave, brave Joe:

"George Bush and the Iraq war are not very popular among Democrats -- have you noticed?" Lieberman said on Monday. "It doesn't take a lot of courage to run [Lamont's] kind of campaign."

As opposed to the "courage" it requires to "take out an insurance policy" because you're scared about losing the primary. Or the "courage" to run away from your opponent's calls for a spending cap while raising his personal finances as an issue. Or the "courage" needed to do extensive polling to test possible attack ads about your opponent's car.

Elsewhere in the Boston Globe, Joan Vennochi nails it:

This isn't simply "Profiles in Courage," starring Joe Lieberman. It is "Profiles in Lieberman," starring a politician who irritated his party via sanctimony and loyalty to self, and must live with the political consequences.

Update: Check back frequently at the official campaign blog's Debate HQ today and tonight for action items, photos and video, news, and analysis.

Update 2: Ned will be on with Sam Seder on Air America at about 12:30pm. Correction: Ned will be a guest tomorrow, not today.

Quoting from a post here on Monday that got lost in the Joe-defection shuffle that day:

...Unlike the convention, where many delegates' votes were uncertain until the last moment, the facts surrounding the debate are clear, and really blunt the impact of these expectations games.

Fact: Joe Lieberman is an experienced 18-year incumbent senator, who has run for Vice President once and President once, debating on the biggest national stage with the likes of Dick Cheney and John Kerry. He dispatched an 18-year incumbent himself in 1988, with his very good performances in debates against Lowell Weicker playing a key role in his election victory. In comparison, Ned Lamont is a complete neophyte as a debater, someone who until a few months ago never envisioned a future in politics. The television audience he faces on Thursday night will likely be the biggest he has ever faced.

The debate will be televised on WVIT-30, C-SPAN, and MSNBC, and there will be a watch party in South Norwalk.

Why it's like pulling teeth to get some Democrats to commit to supporting the decision of Connecticut Democrats is beyond me. But Diane Farrell and John Kerry both jump in. Farrell:

"I endorsed Joe several months ago. I've told him I disagree strongly with him on the war and a few other issues. And I've told him I'll support the winner of the primary on Aug. 8," Farrell said in a statement issued by her campaign.

Kerry:

"Since Kerry has made his personal mission for 2006 electing veterans to the House and Senate, he's likewise only taken sides in Democratic primaries to back candidates who are veterans," [his spokesperson] said. "Connecticut will choose the Democratic Senate nominee, and John Kerry will support him."

Yoss at My Left Nutmeg has started a "Ned Lamont Supporters for CT Democrats" ActBlue page, to convince House candidates like Farrell that they're better off with Ned than with Joe. It's already up to over $560.

Kevin Rennie tells Hotline on Call that Lieberman did some extensive polling on negative messaging before deciding to jump (probably these calls people were receiving from "Mountain West Research" last week). And after looking at the results, he is apparently getting ready to unleash some pretty desperate negative ads:

According to Rennie, "Lieberman asked voters how they would react to his seeking a spot on the ballot if he loses the August 8th Democratic primary. He also tested some themes, his campaign confirmed, [aimed] at kicking the stuffing out of Lamont. Lieberman, who has been looking smaller and smaller in this race, is apparently hoping to score points with an inventory of millionaire Lamont’s motor vehicles. He asked voters if they would be less likely to vote for Lamont if they knew he started driving a hybrid vehicle when he decided to run for the Senate."

Wonder if these new highly relevant issues of Joe's will be on display at the debate tomorrow night.

And as Tim notes, it may not be the best idea for Joe to piss off people who write articles in newspapers. Or to lie to some of them while telling others the truth.

1. Ned Lamont has challenged Joe Lieberman to a spending cap. Lieberman has refused. Lieberman has raised millions more dollars than Lamont, and has millions more in the bank than he does. Anytime you hear Joe claim poverty, or whine that he is running against some self-funding behemoth of a campaign, please realize that he is talking out of his ass.

2. No one - certainly not Ned Lamont - is trying to "force" Joe Lieberman out of the party. Ned has repeatedly challenged Joe to stay in the party and support the primary winner (that's what members of parties do, Joe). Lamont supporters want Joe to remain a Democrat. We just don't want him in the senate anymore. Please understand the difference.

Lieberman today:

"My loyalty to the Democratic Party goes back a lot further than his," Lieberman said Wednesday during a meeting with the editorial board of The News-Times. "Ned Lamont is less about his party than himself and his point of view."

"This Senate seat, in the beginning of the cycle, was a safe seat. Enter Ned Lamont," Lieberman said. "If he — as my mother would say, ‘God forbid’ — wins the primary, I’m not sure he would win the election. That hurts the prospects for the three Democratic challengers for the House seats."

Ned's the one being disloyal by refusing to support the winner of the primary.

Ned's the one endangering a safe seat by pledging a destructive independent run in November.

I'd call this type of stuff Rovian, but that would be an insult to Karl Rove.

Today's Courant editorial makes the absurd argument that because Ned Lamont's success as a candidate is supposedly based on "one issue," Lieberman is justified and correct in doing an end-run around the primary system in order to present his views to the entire electorate.

At this point anyone who repeats the Lieberman camp's line about Ned waging a "one-issue" campaign is willfully ignoring reality. But even accepting that characterization of the race as accurate, where is it written that voters aren't allowed to base their decisions on "one issue?" What possible rationale is there for claiming that this primary should not be considered valid for this reason - other than a sheer mendacious desire that Lieberman keep his seat?

The primary system has worked very well for Joe for the last 30 years. Suddenly, faced with the possibility of being held accountable by it, he's claiming it's not valid anymore.

If that's what he really thinks, he needs to withdraw from the primary.

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's statement that she would honor the decision of Connecticut Democrats and support the winner of the primary, it is becoming increasingly clear that Lieberman's pseudo-defection from the party on Monday was the last straw for a lot of his remaining supporters.

Of course, Joe has never had the support of Connecticut progressives. And during the Bush years he has completely lost the support of mainstream rank-and-file Democrats both in CT and nationwide, who booed him during the 2004 presidential primaries and helped him to a Joementous 5th place finish in New Hampshire. Aside from Republicans, his power base has been reduced to D.C. Democratic party insiders and national and local media. And that is what is now starting to crumble.

Listen closely to CNN's John King and tell me Joe's "friends" Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer aren't supremely pissed about the situation their colleague is putting them in:

KING: You say a petitioning Democratic candidate, but as you know, you would be on the ballot as unaffiliated. I want you to help me through the positions you have put some of your friends in. The leadership, Chuck Schumer, who runs the Democratic senatorial committee, Harry Reid, who of course is the Democratic leader -— they are supporting you in the primary.

Listen to Donna Brazile with King on CNN and tell me the rest of Lieberman's insider "friends" in D.C. aren't feeling the same way:

KING: ...But what if Ned Lamont wins? Should Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer go to Connecticut and campaign for the Democrat? Should they give him millions of dollars to campaign against a Joe Lieberman on the ballot? Do they have an obligation to support the Democratic candidate that way, not just with a piece of paper that says, "He's our nominee"?

BRAZILE: I believe they do have an obligation.

...Joe would have helped himself today, I believe, if he would have announced that he was going to run as a Democrat and he was going to win as a Democrat in August. This complicates situations for Mr. Reid and Mr. Schumer and others.

I am not complicated. I am a Democrat.

As for the media, listen to stories like this one from Colin McEnroe and tell me Joe's "friends" in the local CT press don't feel like he's giving them the middle finger:

Here is how [Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith] concluded an email to a local TV reporter: "“If you distort the truth and report that we are running a negative campaign and Ned is not, I will not forget it."”

And listen to words like these from Christine Stuart at CT News Junkie and tell me he hasn't personally pissed off a lot of those same "friends" by giving scoops to his D.C. buddies instead of them:

Lieberman said he got the message about the petitions out "quickly and early"“, but for the local media who have hounded him over the issue for about two months now today'’s announcement seemed like an eternity. It also came as a slap in the face, since Lieberman told The Cook Report, a national newsletter, more than a week ago that he would run as an independent.

Then look at Hillary's statement in this context, from one of the most careful (to a fault, certainly) politicians in either party. Who put her own name on the line sending out a mailer to convention delegates touting Joe's Democratic credentials.

Joe's remaining friends are turning against him by the hour, because he's treating them like garbage. All because he's too personally weak to even withstand a little primary challenge.

Oh well. At least he'll always have Hannity.

(Photo of ctkeith and the "Kiss" float from ConnecticutBlog.)

The Boom Box parade sounds like it was an absolute blast. I'm very sorry not to have been there, but fortunately a million other bloggers were.

Spazeboy, Scarce, and CTBlogger have all posted video of the parade and the TV news coverage. The creator of the "Kiss" float posts about the experience on My Left Nutmeg, as does Maura and BranfordBoy.

Jane was there, too, and filed a report. (And don't miss Paul Bass's terrific piece on racing up to Hartford with Jane and poodles from Monday.)

Tim at the official blog was all over it too.

And of course, without DumpJoe.com, none of this would have ever happened.

Amazing. Both the incredible response to Ned at the event, and the equally incredible coverage of it.

Update: Jennifer Medina describes the scene in Willimantic for the NY Times:

Along the street were several loyal supporters of Mr. Lieberman, who greeted him with hugs, smiles and promises of "We're with you all the way, Joe." But their encouraging words were often drowned out by the shouts of "Joe's got to go," "traitor" and "shame on you."...

Mr. Lieberman enjoys strong backing with Republicans and independent voters. Indeed, several of his most enthusiastic supporters here said they were not registered Democrats and were eager to see him run on a third line....

But seemingly bolstered by Senator Lieberman's attempt at an independent nomination, the Lamont campaign outdid the Lieberman enthusiasts in both size and volume.

Sen. Clinton brings herself to say what Sen. Dodd, Sen. Schumer, Sen. Reid, and others won't:

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee. But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary. I believe in the Democratic party; and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters. The challenges before us in 2006 call for a strong, united party, in which we all support and work for the candidates who are selected in the Democratic process."

I get the sense that this move is even bigger than it seems right now. More later.

P.S. Pics and video from today's festivities in Willimantic are up at Spazeboy and the Official Blog.

• Join Ned at the Boom Box Parade in Willimantic today at 11am. I hear there will be some type of float there.


• There's been a lot of reaction to yesterday's events, but it's nice to see that in all the articles not a single reporter is biting on Joe's ridiculous "petitioning Democrat" line. Probably the single best analysis of Joe's defection comes from Donna Brazile of all people - a staunch Lieberman supporter - in the Times news analysis today:
  

  Another party official, Donna Brazile, said yesterday that she supported Mr. Lieberman's candidacy but was concerned that his contingency plan would "hurt more than help his candidacy." She explained: "I think Joe Lieberman could have really scored with the Democratic voters if he'd said that he was a Democrat, would run as a Democrat and would honor the wishes of the Democratic voters."

  
  She's right, and hits on Joe's tone deafness (to put it politely) throughout this race. I really do believe that if Lieberman had committed to supporting the primary winner and touted his votes and accomplishments as a Democrat, he would be in nowhere near as much trouble as he is today. I would guess that most of D.C. is as perplexed as Brazile is at why he hasn't done this.


• Speaking of D.C., word is that one of Joe's senate colleagues is going to come out and - like Howard Dean and Russ Feingold - commit to supporting the winner of the primary in August:
  

  Despite this, sources say that Hillary Clinton believes that it'’s important to respect the will of Connecticut voters and that she will commit to support the Democratic candidate - whoever that is -— in November. It should be interesting to watch and see if others follow suit.

  
  Remember, these two go back a long way: Hillary (and Bill) volunteered on Lieberman's state senate campaign while at Yale in 1970.


• Happy 4th! It will be a slow posting day, so hopefully Joe doesn't make any other bizarre announcements. If you're new to the site, check out the wonderful local CT blogs in the blogroll to the left, including:
  
  Official Campaign Blog
  My Left Nutmeg
  ConnecticutBlog
  Spazeboy.net
  Connecticut Bob
  CT Blue Blog
  YouTube "NedHeads" Group

• England loses to Portugal on penalites in the quarterfinals of the FIFA World Cup, but coach Sven-Goran Eriksson pledges that his team will play France on Wednesday anyway as a "petitioning semifinalist."


• Andy Roddick loses in the third round at Wimbledon in straight sets to an upstart challenger, but reserves the right to play in the fourth round so that "all the Wimbledon fans can see him play."


• The Kansas City Royals, 28 games out of first place in the American League Central, announced today that they are "taking out an insurance policy" to ensure that they will be able to play in the World Series if they happen to miss the playoffs.

John King goes after Lieberman on CNN. Crooks and Liars has it (as does YouTube):



Hmm... seems folks like Reid and Schumer are not too happy about these developments:

KING: You say a petitioning Democratic candidate, but as you know, you would be on the ballot as unaffiliated. I want you to help me through the positions you have put some of your friends in. The leadership, Chuck Schumer, who runs the Democratic senatorial committee, Harry Reid, who of course is the Democratic leader — they are supporting you in the primary.

Should you lose that primary, they won’t answer the question right now, they say we will get there if that happens. But sources are telling our Dana Bash that they would feel most likely that they would have no choice but to support your opponent as the Democratic nominee in the primary.

Update: Lamont's press conference now up on YouTube.

(Update: Longer video of press conference here.)

From his own press conference:

Swan will be responding to Lieberman's defection on Air America in a couple of minutes.

Also, a couple of other updates:

David Sirota issues a call to action on the DSCC.

Stirling Newberry looks at Joe's defection in the context of rolling back the hard-won creation of the primary system itself. We already knew Joe pined for the days of machine bosses, but this lame and laughable attempt to game the system is a piece of work. Connecticut voters are smarter than that.

Today, Joe Lieberman cut-and-ran from the Democratic party on the slowest news day of the summer.

In announcing he would run as a petitioning candidate in November if he loses on August 8th, he has clearly stated he is no longer a member of the Democratic party. The only thing he is concerned about right now is his own desperate attempt to hold on to power.

Members of a party abide by primary results. There is no such thing as an "petitioning Democrat." If there was, Joe could accept the Republican endorsement and run as a "Republican Democrat."

Joe has also clearly stated he thinks he will lose the primary on August 8th. His internal polls must look even worse than I thought.

Just like when Joe ran for Vice President and Senate at the same time in 2000 - meaning that if he and Gore had won, Democrats would have lost a senate seat to a Republican appointment - he is again putting his own career and self-interest ahead of his constitutents and his party (or now ex-party).

In addition, Joe has just created a world of shit for his supposed friends Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney, and Chris Murphy. I wonder what they all think of this.

This is how he treats his friends. This is how he treats his party. On the slowest news day of the summer.

These are the actions of a very weak candidate, and a selfish and cowardly man.

What a sorry sight to see an 18-year incumbent senator running scared from a little primary challenge like this. No backbone. No courage. No integrity.

And not a Democrat anymore, either.

Get involved | Contribute

Update: A reminder of some of the many Connecticut Democrats who have stated they will support the primary winner:

Dan Malloy: Democratic nominee, Governor
John DeStefano: Democratic candidate, Governor
Nancy DiNardo: Democratic State Party Chairman
George Jepsen: Former Democratic State Party Chairman, Former State Senate Majority Leader
Susan Bysiewicz: Secretary of State
Richard Blumenthal: Attorney General
Joe Courtney: 2nd District Congrssional nominee
Chris Murphy: 5th District Congressional nominee

Might be worth asking them again, as well as asking those who haven't answered yet.

Update 2: Lieberman three weeks ago:

"I'm really focused on the Democratic primary and I'm not doing anything beyond that," Lieberman said.

I guess that statement is now inoperative.

And Joe Lieberman is still a Democrat.

In an hour, though, who knows...

There's only a few days left before the debate - with a holiday dead zone in between - so time is of the essence as both sides expectedly go about trying to set the bar lower for their own candidate and higher for their opponent. Sean Smith and Marion Steinfels did this in the run-up to the convention, repeatedly trying to set what they were certain was an unreachable bar of 30% of the delegates for Lamont, who promptly proceeded to surpass even their unrealistic expectations.

But unlike the convention, where many delegates' votes were uncertain until the last moment, the facts surrounding the debate are clear, and really blunt the impact of these expectations games.

Fact: Joe Lieberman is an experienced 18-year incumbent senator, who has run for Vice President once and President once, debating on the biggest national stage with the likes of Dick Cheney and John Kerry. He dispatched an 18-year incumbent himself in 1988, with his very good performances in debates against Lowell Weicker playing a key role in his election victory. In comparison, Ned Lamont is a complete neophyte as a debater, someone who until a few months ago never envisioned a future in politics. The television audience he faces on Thursday night will likely be the biggest he has ever faced.

Fact: Ned Lamont has challenged Joe Lieberman to a series of debates. Lieberman has so far only agreed to one. Yet, as three political science professors noted in yesterday's Courant, it's Joe who needs these debates, and the pressure is squarely on him:

"The fact Lieberman feels he has to debate him is a big victory already," said professor Don Greenberg, chairman of Fairfield University's political science department. "Lieberman has to convince Democrats they really can't afford to switch horses."

"He really is in a situation where he has to debate," said Gary Rose, chairman of the history and political science department at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield. "This is his way of really thwarting or attempting to thwart the roll Lamont is on. . . . To remain quiet would only give Lamont more opportunity to define him."...

...Ken Dautrich, a professor of public policy at the University of Connecticut, said he was surprised Lamont would want to "go toe to toe to someone who's been a vice presidential candidate."

While it may be politically unwise for Lamont to give the far more experienced Lieberman a chance to take him apart in a debate, it's not surprising that he would do so. From the beginning, the Lamont campaign has focused on talking about issues important to Connecticut Democrats - issues that Joe Lieberman has either ignored or been on the wrong side of for years. Debates like this one give the party a chance to have this discussion. It says a lot about the candidates' respective senses of obligation to their constituents that Lieberman is the one who doesn't want to hold more than one debate, when it's Lamont who has much more to lose by doing so.

So when Joe unleashes his personal attacks on Ned Lamont during the debate, remember the real reasons why each candidate is showing up to this debate in the first place. One is doing so because he has to, the other is doing so because he wants to.

"Hey, look at that, a Democrat walking with a Republican," came one shout to Lieberman.

"How's the president," shouted another parade watcher, giving Lieberman a thumbs-down sign.

- Two spectators at the Barnum Festival parade in Bridgeport yesterday, according to the Connecticut Post.

Lieberman was marching at the side of disgraced Bridgeport Mayor John Fabrizi, who has admitted using cocaine while in office. Judging from the article, it seems even cokehead mayors are more popular than Joe these days.

Invoking some powerful imagery from the devastation wrought upon New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina, this new ad portrays the other calls for help that are often lost in the day-to-day hustle and bustle. Senator Lieberman hasn't stepped up to help those who've lost their pensions or who might benefit from universal healthcare, but he has gone to bat for energy companies. Go figure!

Check out the ad on YouTube (below), or in WMV and QT formats via the official website.



Update: From the Press Release, via the official blog:

“Senator Lieberman presents an image of himself that is truly at odds with his voting record,” said Lamont Campaign Manager Tom Swan. “This reminds voters that Lieberman has helped kill universal health care, he’s voted for many trade agreements that hurt the environment and American jobs, and he’s been open to and has even supported privatizing social security.”

[I'm a guest poster here, so if you'd like to contact me, please send me an e-mail. My websites, www.spazeboy.net and the Ned Lamont Resource, also cover Ned Lamont.]

The debate is just around the corner, airing on NBC30 at 7:00pm EST (possibly also on CT-N and C-SPAN). While T.Party has already mentioned that NBC30 is accepting viewer-submitted questions in a previous round-up, I thought it would be fun to highlight some of the questions proposed by commenters at My Left Nutmeg:

CTKeith

"[Senator Lieberman] when did you realize that you couldn't possibly win a primary where only Democrats are allowed to vote?"

Maura

"Senator Lieberman, could you please explain how, as Democrat and an American, you believe that President Bill Clinton was more worthy of censure in the Senate than George W. Bush?

Jim

How do you prefer Connecticut residents pay for the Iraq war - a tax increase, continued deficit spending, or are there specific Connecticut programs you wish to sacrifice?

Larkspur

To Lieberman -- If the Iraq War and Occupation are so critical , then why haven't you encouraged you kids to enlist in the Army or Marines and be sent to fight in Iraq? Why should other people and other people's kids be sacrificed in that hellhole you helped create when you won't sacrifice your own children?

To Lamont -- Assuming you win the US Senate Primary and General Election, what senate committees would you seek to join?
Which senator would you like to be your mentor in the senate?

spazeboy

Senator Lieberman, boxers or briefs?

If you've got a question for the candidates, make sure you submit it soon.

[I'm a guest poster here, so if you'd like to contact me, please send me an e-mail. My websites, www.spazeboy.net and the Ned Lamont Resource, also cover Ned Lamont.]