Former Lieberman supporter Jon Chait in the LA Times:

The night of his defeat, Lieberman tried to cast the result of the primary as illegitimate because "the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let this result stand." But what does it mean that the politics of partisan polarization won? It means that Lieberman lost. It's a perfectly circular definition.

Moreover, it's increasingly clear that Lieberman's loss is his own fault. He was far too slow to recognize the seriousness of Lamont's challenge. He ended the campaign with $2 million unspent. And his decision to now run as an independent was a disaster, confirming the central accusation against him, which was that he cared more about his own standing than his party. If he had just declared in advance that he would abide by the result of the primary, he probably would have won, and he'd have Lamont campaigning for him today....

What's the point of running to uphold Democratic hawkishness when you're running against the Democratic Party and its chosen nominee? Lieberman is fighting on terrain that, from the perspective of the liberal hawks, could not be less advantageous.

It has stopped being a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party and become a battle for Lieberman to keep his prestigious job. If the ideas that he professes to value above all else are really his highest priority, he should drop out of the race.

Greg Sargent:

A few days ago, Election Central wondered aloud where Joe Lieberman, who thinks of himself as a real Democrat, stands on the fact that his political travails have become one of the most important components of the GOP's midterm efforts to slime the whole Democratic Party as weak. Would he in the interests of the Democratic Party demand that the Republicans stop using him as a GOP talking point?

So we posed a question to the Lieberman campaign: Given that Lieberman is being used for the GOP's attacks on the Democratic Party, will he call on the GOP to stop it? And the Lieberman campaign has given us an answer....:

"Joe Lieberman has no interest in being Dick Cheney or Karl Rove's political football, just as he has no interest in being a political football for Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. In fact, he's fed up with this kind of petty partisan game playing which is stalemating Washington and blocking progress on the problems people care about. That is exactly why he is campaigning for a new politics of unity and purpose that will deliver results for the people of Connecticut. The Republicans and Democrats in Washington can spin the results any way they want, but Joe Lieberman is focused on bringing meaningful change for his constituents."

Hillary, Bayh, Feingold, Warner, and Edwards have all already come out strongly in support for Ned Lamont (D-CT) and the Democratic Party.

But Wes Clark and Bill Richardson have gone the extra mile by pointedly and publicly calling on Joe Lieberman (Lieberman-CT) to end his harmful do-over run. Hopefully others will soon follow, especially in the wake of Lieberman's Rove-coordinated takedown of Democrats on national security this week.

Gen. Clark:

You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party.

Indeed, Connecticut Democrats recognized all of this, and yesterday they chose Ned Lamont as their nominee for the U.S. Senate. Now, I hope you'll join me in supporting Ned as he heads into the general election this November....

I committed myself to supporting the Democratic nominee for the US Senate in Connecticut, and I ask you to do likewise. Because too much is at stake with our troubles abroad and at home, we cannot play games this Election Day. That's why I call on all loyal Democrats to join me in urging Senator Lieberman to drop his bid for the Senate as an Independent and endorse the duly nominated Democrat.

Gov. Richardson:

Joe Lieberman is a good friend of mine, a true public servant who has served his constituents and the Democratic Party well.

However, after a hard-fought race Connecticut's Democratic voters chose Ned Lamont as their candidate for US Senate.

I look forward to supporting Ned as he fights to help Democrats take back the Senate, and I call on Joe Lieberman to respect the will of the voters and step aside.

Unusually strong - but warranted - language from Josh Marshall. I would hope Lieberman's comment this week was similarly the last straw for all Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliateds who are sick of the McCarthyist tactics of Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Lieberman:

But now Lieberman is not only running as the de facto Republican in the race, he's running as the worst sort of Republican, going on the trail claiming that any serious questioning of our policy in Iraq is a victory for the terrorists, even pulling in yesterday's terror plot take-down into his angle against Lamont. With Lamont, those guys might have blown up the plane. Leaving Iraq is a win for the terrorists. A Lamont win is a win for the terrorists. That was after Wednesday when Joe pledged to save the Democratic party from the extremists he seems to think make up the entire Democratic party. Except for Joe.

So questioning the president's policy on Iraq is a win for the terrorists. The Democratic party is outside the mainstream of American politics. I can go to Republicans for that, right?

So it's not just about the independent candidacy any more. It's about him. Enough. Just leave.

• Harry Reid finally hits back against Lieberman (Lieberman-CT):
  

  "Connecticut voters certainly aren't supporting terrorists," Reid said. "Joe has to play on the field of Connecticut; this is Connecticut politics. The people of this country and the people of Connecticut want a change in direction."



• Mark Schmitt says Lieberman is "deranged" about the war on terror:
  

  I’m sorry, but this is just a deranged, or at best deeply confused and manic, thing to say. It shows a lack of perspective and reality and responsibility, even in its lack of clarity about what exactly the threat is and how to defeat it. Why does anyone accept that this kind of blather can be considered taking the threat more "seriously"? It’s not. It’s hugely unserious in its trivialization of the great moral challenges of the Twentieth Century and it’s bald politicization of the current challenge.



• CNN's Chuck Roberts agrees with Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove: Ned Lamont (D-CT) is the "Al Qaeda candidate," and Democrats are the Al Qaeda party. How long will senior Democrats put up with this? How long before they go after Joe Lieberman (Lieberman-CT) for participating in this smear against their party?


• Chris Murphy (D-CT) quoted in the Washington Post:
  

  Chris Murphy, who is running against Republican Rep. Nancy L. Johnson in the Hartford area, said that while he once feared that Lamont's candidacy would distract from his own race, he now views it as an ideal complement. "I've come 180 degrees," Murphy said.

  
  If the Lieberman Party wasn't a factor, and the Democratic Party stood united, the infrastructure and energy that helped Lamont both online and offline would be fully available for the gubernatorial and congressional races. But as it stands, that's not the case, all thanks to Joe.


• Lieberman has a new ad up and running already. Sounds pedantic and boring... just what he needed to convince people he isn't a loser. More interestingly, as the official blog notes, all that talk from Joe about being "focused only on the primary" in the days before August 8th turns out to be yet another lie:
  

  Turns out, that “single minded focus” thing might not have been so true after all. Imagine that.
  
  Looks like they were cutting post-primary campaign ads and creating the theme/talking points for the go-it-alone general election challenge. “A politics of unity.” He even used the phrase 15 seconds after his concession speech when cornered by Mark Davis.



• Mayor Bloomberg (R-NYC) is the just latest Republican politician - from Minnesota to Connecticut to D.C. - to try to use the Lieberman Party run to his own political advantage and to attack the Democratic party:
  

  "All of a sudden the same elected officials say, 'Oh, he's no longer the best guy. He shouldn't be elected. You can't vote for him. You should vote for the guy that a week ago I was saying was not the best guy,'" Bloomberg said.

  
  Democrats, wake up: it's time to realize that the Lieberman Party serves solely to damage Democratic candidates both in Connecticut and around the country.

Will prominent Democrats call Lieberman out on his attacks on the Democratic party? Not likely, thinks Colin McEnroe:

The senator is obviously wrong and out of line. His statement suggests he intends to run as a Cheneyist against his Democratic opponent. He has handed the Democrats an unsought and probably unwelcome opportunity to show us what they mean when they say they will support Lamont. Ordinarily, it would entail calling Lieberman's bluff. Will they? I say no.

More McEnroe:

Who were the London terrorists and what did they expect to accomplish by blowing up more planes? I don't know the answer right now, and I can promise you Lieberman didn't know either yesterday when he made his remarks. What's perpetually astonishing and sickening is the degree to which he doesn't care. He is so interested in scoring political points and in pursuing a strategy of shoot-first, think-later, that his remarks make Bill O'Reilly seem like a fairly sophisticated geopolitical thinker by comparison....

This is how Lieberman lost me: by trafficking in fear and by the chronic blurring of 9/11 and our Iraq policies.

Both Ned Lamont's statement and Harry Reid's statement (representing all Senate Democrats) on the UK terror plot yesterday called for a "change in course" in Iraq. The type of action that Lieberman claimed would "strengthen" terrorists.

Joe Lieberman (Lieberman-CT) was attacking the Democratic party yesterday. Not just Ned Lamont (D-CT). It's time for Democrats to call him out on it, the same way they would call out Dick Cheney or Karl Rove.

Lieberman - by choice - is no longer a Democrat. He no longer deserves any protection or special treatment from his former colleagues in the party.

Time for Democrats like Hillary Clinton to put their mouths where their money is.

Reports the NY Observer's Politicker:

Orchulli told us late yesterday that he's already been approached by state Republicans about replacing the hapless Alan Schlesinger as the G.O.P. nominee in the Connecticut Senate Race -- and that he'd "make himself available" to do it.

"Should the party decide that they want me, and should Mr. Schlesinger decide that he wants to step aside, I would make myself available to them," said Mr.Orchulli. "If I was in it, it would undercut the perception that Mr. Lieberman has the Republicans, and it would change the dynamic of this whole race."

If a Republican candidate with money (and no Wampum card) were to replace Schlesinger, The Lieberman Party is pretty much toast.

Which is why I don't think this will happen. Both the state and national GOP are better off ignoring Schlesinger and going all-in with the Lieberman Party. The only development that might change their minds is if someone with an actual chance against Lamont in a 2- or 3-way race signaled a willingness to jump in. Orchulli is simply not that person.

• In light of this week's Rove-Cheney-Bush-Lieberman orchestrated attack on the Democratic party on national security, Paul Krugman columnizes on Lieberman's long history of being wrong on Iraq, while always accusing those who disagreed with him of giving comfort to terrorists:
  

  The question now is how deep into the gutter Mr. Lieberman’s ego will drag him.
  
  There’s an overwhelming consensus among national security experts that the war in Iraq has undermined, not strengthened, the fight against terrorism. Yet yesterday Mr. Lieberman, sounding just like Dick Cheney — and acting as a propaganda tool for Republicans trying to Swift-boat the party of which he still claims to be a member — suggested that the changes in Iraq policy that Mr. Lamont wants would be “taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.”
  
  In other words, not only isn’t Mr. Lieberman sensible, he may be beyond redemption.



• The Secretary of State's office is still verifying the Lieberman Party's petitions, which seem to be quite "sloppy":
  

  Shirley Surgeon, Hartford's Democratic registrar of voters, said she is verifying 59 pages of signatures delivered to that city's town clerk last week.
  
  Although each petition contains room for 30 signatures, Surgeon said the majority of those she received contain about half that, and several have been disqualified.
  
  "Out of 15 on this first page, nine were good," Surgeon said.
  
  In Norwalk, Town Clerk Andrew Garfunkel said he received one petition page Wednesday.
  
  Norwalk Democratic Registrar Betty Bondi said if the rest of Lieberman's petitions are as "sloppy" as that one piece of paper, his chances to make it onto the ballot do not look good.

  
  There were reportedly 18,000 of them, but Spazeboy raised some excellent questions about their validity yesterday that have yet to be raised by reporters:
  

  How did 29 people collect over 18,000 signatures?
  Were people paid to collect signatures?
  How much were they paid per signature?
  Is Senator Lieberman trying to buy a line on the ballot?
  Is he using money donated by Democrats for his campaign as a Democrat?
  Were the signature gatherers residents of the great state of Connecticut?
  Is Senator Lieberman still a Democrat?
  Is he registered as a voter in the Connecticut for Lieberman party?
  What is the platform of the Connecticut for Lieberman party?
  Where can CTBob get a Connecticut for Lieberman button?



• Matt Stoller and Markos both ask why the press continues to repreat Lieberman's lies about the phony "website hacking" story. Markos debunked the story entirely yesterday:
  

  See, almost identical levels of traffic. The difference being that the Lamont people had competent people to keep the site up and running despite the easily-predicted traffic rush, while the Lieberman people are still sitting around twirling their thumbs.
  
  I hope the FBI makes the results of its investigation public, because every indication is that the Lieberman campaign overreacted and used their own incompetence to score political points.

  
  As the official blog asks, why does Dan Gerstein still have a job, if he has zero credibility?


• BranfordBoy has the first three-way poll taken since Tuesday, done by Rasmussen, which shows the race at Lieberman (Lieberman) 46% - Lamont (D) 41% - Schlesinger (R) 6%. The trend in this poll from July is Lieberman +6, Lamont +1, Schlesinger -7. The only thing this poll shows is huge GOP movement to the Lieberman Party. It's no wonder Rove, Mehlman, and CT Republicans are building up Joe and now urging the damaged Schlesinger to stay in the race. It seems likely that if the GOP candidate gets over about 12% in a three-way race, Ned Lamont will win, so they have every reason to keep a non-factor like Schlesinger on the GOP line, in the hopes that he gets less than that.

(Hat tip CTBlogger and Scarce.)



Word is John Edwards will campaign for Ned Lamont (D-CT) on August 17th.

Someone ask Joe:

Washington, DC — Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement on the British terror plot:

“I commend British authorities for defusing this terror plot and apprehending the suspects. Their actions protected the lives of innocent civilians, including many American citizens. Today’s events are an important reminder that we need to renew our focus on the war on terror and to continue to work with our allies to protect Americans from terrorism.

“Terrorism remains the greatest threat to our security. As the five year anniversary of the September 11th attacks approaches, we should take this opportunity not just to remember, but to take stock of what progress has been made to protect Americans and what steps remain unfulfilled. As a result of mismanagement and the wrong funding priorities, we are not as safe as we should be and we still have not implemented the bipartisan 9-11 Commission’s recommendations to secure our ports, airports, and chemical plants. The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists. This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world.”

The New York Times has more on Rove's Cheney's Lieberman's statement today.

As BranfordBoy notes, there is only one candidate in this race who is strong on national security, and it's the Democratic candidate:

This is what Ned said Tuesday night (or was it Wednesday morning?):

As your Senator, I will work to assure that America has the strongest and greatest military on the face of this earth. But America is stronger still when we work with our allies, stay true to our values, and treat the rest of the world with respect.

That's the America that Connecticut voted for today.

Ned Lamont is far less the anti-war candidate than he is the pro-sanity candidate. The sooner everyone wakes up to that fact, the better off the country will be.

With the words he used, Joe Lieberman viciously attacked the entire Democratic party as peing pro-terrorist. He aligned himself with Bush, Rove, and Cheney - three terribly unpopular figures in Connecticut, even amongst Republicans. I don't think he has a clue what he's doing politically, but what else is new.

Will prominent Democrats just sit back and take this? They wouldn't take it from Bush, Rove, or Cheney...

"I called him. He's a personal friend."

- Karl Rove describing his supportive election-day telephone call to Sen. Lieberman (Lieberman-CT).

Update: Joe must have listened to his advice. Two days after the phone call and he's already attacking the Democratic party on national security using Karl Rove's terms:

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

Shorter Joe: "The Democratic Party loves terrorists."

I wonder what Sen. Dodd, Sen. Clinton, and other Democrats think of the Lieberman Party becoming a fully owned subsidiary of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

Interesting:

"I must tell you if I was being selfish and listened to my wife, I would accept the results of yesterday's primary, finish my term and go out and make a lot of money," Lieberman said.

Thankfully for the great unwashed masses of Connecticut Democrats, Lieberman has chosen not to be selfish. He is being selfless in undergoing such great amounts of personal (and family) stress just so the lowly voters of the state get another chance to vote for him vote against him.

He's so generous.

Sen. Lieberman's hometown paper calls on him to exit gracefully in a devastating editorial this morning (read the whole thing):

Joe Lieberman should accept the results of his party's primary. He lost.

He should reconsider his bid to run as an independent candidate and get out of the race.

For an 18-year-incumbent who was the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential candidate, his margin of defeat to Ned Lamont, a political unknown until a few months ago, was significant. Lamont even carried Lieberman's home town of New Haven.

Lieberman says he is still a Democrat, but his campaign will divide the party that rejected him....

Somehow, the irony of a general election strategy that relies on Republican votes to win seems to have eluded a politician who touted his Democratic credentials during the campaign. It merely supports Lamont supporters' charge that Lieberman is a closet Republican.

By running as a third-party candidate, Lieberman has left himself open to the charge that he is not only a spoiler but that he cares more about himself than the party to which he still claims allegiance....

Lieberman has served the state with distinction during a long career as a state senator, attorney general and U.S. senator. He should withdraw now with grace, although we hope that his career in public service will continue, if not in the Senate, in another elected or appointed post.

Joe knows what's best for you stupid Democrats who turned out in record numbers to vote in the primary:

"I've made this decision. I'm sticking with it. I'm doing it for a reason. I believe it's the right reason," Lieberman said. "I think it's important for my state. I believe it's important for my party."

Update: Thinking more about this, the sheer contempt for the Democratic Party coming from Sen. Lieberman (Lieberman-CT) in this quote goes far beyond anything he's said yet. He thinks that he alone is the arbiter of what's "important" for the party whose expressed opinion through the democratic process he is disregarding, whose local and national leaders he is ignoring, and whose values he is now attacking in the person of Ned Lamont (D-CT).

It's one thing for Joe to say he wants to run as an Independent because he believes he is no longer part of the Democratic party, and wants to allow his strong base of Republicans to vote for him (although making that case after running in the party's primary trying to burnish his progressive credentials would be pretty hard).

But it's another thing entirely to run as an Independent - playing footsie with Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, and the state GOP - while having the audacity to claim he is doing so because he alone knows what's best for "my party."

Anytime Joe Lieberman attacks Ned Lamont (D-CT) now, he is attacking the Democratic Party itself.

Josh Marshall picks apart the faux Republican cheers over Ned Lamont's victory on Tuesday, as well the media's shameful stenography in reporting them as truth:

What's really sad is that the nexus of national press and political operative bigwigs really needs to get over itself a bit here. Because once they do, they may actually be able to get over Joe Lieberman.

Joe Lieberman is not a world-historical figure.

He's not fighting some long twilight struggle.

He thinks he's both. But he's not....

The heart of the matter here is that everyone knows Joe in DC. They like him. They think he's a nice guy, which he is. His staff likes him, which also makes him seem like a nice guy. He's schmoozed the city for two decades.

But really he's just a pol who ignored his constituents, went into serious denial about a major foreign policy disaster, was more lockstep with the president's non-policy than many Republicans, and got bounced by his constituents.

That's politics. And that's accountability. And, really? It's not that big a deal.

And Joe wasn't the only incumbent in Congress to be held accountable on Tuesday, as Chuck Todd notes:

Hotline researchers are already on the case, but we can't find evidence of any primary night (in a non-redistricting year) producing three incumbent losses. And these losses were across the ideological and geographic spectrum. Each one individually can be explained away (moderate Joe Schwarz only won his first race because the conservative vote was split, not so this year; Cynthia McKinney is, well, Cynthia McKinney; and Joe Lieberman found himself on the wrong end of a divisive issue in the wrong year).

And yet, they all lost to candidates promising to do the same thing: change Washington. Change the spending habits, or change the foreign policy, or simply change personal behavior.

That's the number of towns Ned Lamont won yesterday, according to a map featured in this pdf report from Strategic Telemetry. (Update: Map above edited to show town names.)

Although Ned Lamont’s 52% to 48% win in last night’s Connecticut U.S. Senate primary was closer than some recent polls had suggested, his victory was widespread. Lamont carried seven of Connecticut’s eight counties, and 125 of the 169 municipalities. Lamont carried both of Connecticut’s media markets, doing slightly better in the New York market, where he got 52.5% of the vote, than he did in the Hartford / New Haven market, where he got 51.6%.

(Hat tip to Hotline on Call, which misreads the dark green along the NY border as an indication that those voters paid attention to the NY Times endorsement. In reality, they went strong for Ned because they include rural areas and small towns ignored by Joe Lieberman for years as well as Ned's homebase of Greenwich.)

Spazeboy has video of the endorsements this morning from State Chair DiNardo, Sen. Dodd, Rep. Larson, Sec. of State Bysiewicz, State Comptroller Wyman, Attorney General Blumenthal, and Mayor DeStefano, among others:



Seems the Lieberman Party will be Democrat-free.

It's now crystal clear that Joe Lieberman - as of today, officially (Lieberman-CT) - will be getting close to zero support from any national or local Democratic figure or organization of any stature whatsoever. Read the post below for a list of those who came out in strong support of the Democratic party in just the first few hours of the officially endorsed candidacy of Ned Lamont (D-CT), or read this partial list of endorsements that is sure to grow exponentially over the next few hours and days.

While the national backlash (such as Rahm Emanuel's "love child" comment) seems tied in large part to party leaders wanting a unified message going into the fall, on the local level a different dynamic is at play. Local candidates and officials have seen the results of the amazing energy of the both the campaign organization and its supporters in the state that resulted in a longshot candidate knocking off an 18-year incumbent, helping to inspire 30,000 new voters to become Democrats in the process, and most shockingly, inspiring a 43% turnout in a primary race that was expected to bring half that.

As the official blog notes, Joe Lieberman (Lieberman-CT) is now the single biggest impediment to the success of local Democrats in November:

We need 15 seats to re-capture the House of Representatives. We can re-claim the governor’s mansion in Connecticut. Everyone in the Party hopes our impressive grassroots organization can exert even more of it’s muscle towards making those goals happen. But that is up to Senator Lieberman. And we hope he’ll join us in doing so between now and November.

And some of his campaign's own staffers apparently feel the same way, according to the Carpetbagger Report:

Two independent sources have confirmed that some Lieberman aides decided well in advance of yesterday's primary that if the senator abandoned the Democratic Party for an independent campaign, they would resign in protest. Given yesterday's results and Lieberman's announcement, that's exactly what's about to happen.

The staff "shake-up," in other words, isn't necessarily Lieberman cleaning house — it's Lieberman losing staffers who won't work for someone who isn't a Democrat.

If the Lieberman Party is to go forward at all, it will only be thanks to strong financial and political right-wing support. From President Bush, from Karl Rove, from the White House press shop, from Ken Mehlman, from local GOP officials, from big-time Republican donors, from right-wing talk radio and the right-wing blogosphere - all of whom have launched attacks today against the Democratic Party in the person of Ned Lamont, taking their cues precisely from Lieberman's attacks on Ned in his acceptance speech at the Lieberman Party nominating convention last night.

If Joe Lieberman (Lieberman-CT) goes forward with his GOP front-group Party of One, it will almost certainly mean no CT Democratic pickups in the House, and no chance of winning the governor's race either. For Connecticut Democrats, that's obviously far too high a price to pay for one selfish man who yearns to hold on to power but can't ever seem to win elections.

George Bush's Favorite Democrat Republican:

According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."

(Photo from the Ned Lamont Flickr photostream.)

If you took one look at the inaugural Lieberman Party convention in Hartford last night, it was shocking how few Democrats were in attendance. A scattering for sure, but the room mainly contained members of the press and those ubiquitous teenagers walking around in Lieberman t-shirts. Compare this to Ned Lamont's room, which was chock full of prominent national Democrats like Maxine Waters and local ones like George Jepsen, and hundreds of enthusiastic volunteers who through their hard work earned tickets to the event.

That same juxtaposition of images is being played out today in the devastating non-support that Sen. Lieberman is receiving for his quixotic and harmful "Connecticut for Lieberman" do-over campaign. Consider:

• The entire statewide Democratic ticket, including Attorney General Blumenthal, Senator Dodd, and party chair Nancy DiNardo, gathered at the state Democratic party headquarters today in a show of party unity for Ned Lamont (D-CT), the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate from the state of Connecticut (pictured above).


• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer issued this statement:
  

  "The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken and chosen Ned Lamont as their nominee. Both we and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fully support Mr. Lamont’s candidacy. Congratulations to Ned on his victory and on a race well run.
  
  "Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction."



• Hillary Clinton and now Barack Obama both didn't wait for the ink to dry on the Lieberman Party petitions before donating through their respective PACs to Ned Lamont (D-CT).


• Russ Feingold sounds like he's itching to come to CT to campaign for Ned and the Democratic Party:
  

  Senator Russ Feingold said today that he “enthusiastically” endorsed Mr. Lamont’s candidacy, saying that the election result showed that Americans were seeking, among other things, “an Iraq policy that makes sense.”



• And to continue down the list of potential 2008 candidates, John Edwards was the first to call Ned last night to congratulate him:
  

  Mr. Lamont said that former Senator John Edwards, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in 2004, was the first Democratic leader to call him last night.



• DNC Chair Howard Dean supports the Democratic candidate:
  

  "In Connecticut, Democratic voters exercised their most fundamental right as Americans, choosing Ned Lamont as the Democratic nominee. We congratulate Mr. Lamont and look forward to working with him both to ensure his victory in November and as a United States Senator. Senator Joe Lieberman has served the people of Connecticut admirably for the last 18 years and always stood up for what he believed in. It was a hard fought campaign, and the Democratic voters of Connecticut have made their choice."



• And Diane Farrell was the first Democratic congressional candidate to run over to Ned:
  

  "I want to congratulate Ned Lamont on his victory – his tenacity and spirit are an inspiration. I want to commend Joe Lieberman on the race he ran. It was a tough one, hard-fought by both candidates. It focused on issues that are important to all of us, and that is always a good thing. The biggest victor here, however, is our Democratic process. Voters have expressed their views and now we move on to the general election. I believe it is important to support the election process of our democracy and I will support Ned Lamont as the Democratic candidate.

Quote of the day month year?

“This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the leader of the Democratic House Congressional campaign. “This is not about the war. It’s blind loyalty to Bush.”

Methinks Joe might be currently regreting his statement that he would "never" run as a Republican.

His independent campaign, even at 2AM the night of the primary, looks like it will almost certainly be stillborn.

Together:

It's been a spirited campaign, but today we are all Democrats. Here in Connecticut we've still got a fight on our hands this November -- and in Washington when we get there.

This is only the first chapter in what will be a long story of bringing government back to the people. It's been an uphill battle from the beginning, and we've still got a long way to go.

Declare your support and spread the word to your friends, family and neighbors:

I want change -- in Iraq and here at home. I'm with Ned Lamont.

Sign it.

A word apparently not in the vocabulary of Sen. Lieberman.

Senator, do what's right for your party.

For once.

It's amazing how Joe can keep losing elections and calling himself a winner.

In the blogger room. Lots of people with computers. There are plenty of other sites where you can follow the results. Please do.

Just got back from pollstanding in Waterbury. Hot sun, friendly people. Voting is really a civic event in neighborhoods like this. People take their kids, old acquaintances see each other for the first time in a year or two.

The three Lieberman volunteers - young teenagers - at the polling place were dropped off by a van, and spent most of the afternoon sitting underneath a tree talking on their cellphones, ignoring the voters. I wish I had brought my camera. They must have enjoyed the paycheck.

I haven't had time to read the blogs or the news, but apparently Sen. Lieberman's campaign is now trying to make a last-minute big-time distratction by pushing the story of their website crashing. Tim Tagaris speaks for me, and I'm sure the entire pro-Lamont unofficial blogosphere, on this.

I do find it entertaining that suddenly the Lieberman campaign thinks their website is essential to their get out the vote strategy. The site was rarely updated, and not an integral part of their campaign at all.

Update: Matt Stoller sums up a must-read email he got from a technical contact:

Bottom line, it shouldn't have taken the Lieberman camp more than an hour to fix this.

I'm literally sick to my stomach that this is becoming an issue in this campaign. Having woken up at 4:30am this morning and volunteered nonstop since, perhaps it's a physical as much as an emotional reaction. But this race is about real, life-or-death issues. And to see those shoved aside once again, no matter who (if anyone) is at fault, for mindless media coverage of an issue like this at the last minute, makes me physically ill.

But I'm going to work that much harder for the rest of the day. This is too important.

Nothing left but the voting. Follow the links in the post below to vote, remind others to vote, or to help get out the vote.

(Photo by Paul Bass of the New Haven Independent.)

Vote:



Tell your friends to vote.

Get out the vote.

Rock the boat.

Interesting...

Sen. Lieberman last night changed the text of this speech at the last minute in order to avoid giving the impression that by saying he would "respect the decision" of Connecticut Democrats, he might have meant he would actually respect their decision, not throw it in the garbage and run in the Lieberman Party:

The Line Lieberman Never Gave

"If after hearing the truth about where I stand on Iraq, you still want to cast your vote solely on that one issue, then I respect your decision."

Per the Hartford Courant, that line was included in the advanced text of a speech Sen. Joe Lieberman gave yesterday on Iraq.

That line "could have been interpreted as a promise to quit the race if he loses."

But Lieberman never said the line.

Lieberman will be under unbelievable pressure to concede gracefully if he loses tomorrow night. From D.C. insiders, from state officials, from the media, from his colleagues in the Senate and the leadership of the House. All are already involved in distancing themselves from him. Branded a loser, he will gain no traction in the general, and cause huge headaches for local and national Democrats. Yet today, he told Fox News, of all outlets, he was committed to keeping the Joementum alive after tomorrow, no matter what.

Twenty twenty twenty-four hours to go... GOTV!

• New Quinnipiac poll shows Ned Lamont up 51-45. It's worth noting the dates on these polls - while they were released 4 days apart, they were actually taken one week apart. The more amazing number is that 90% of respondants say their minds are made up. As always, predicting likely voters is really close to impossible. And this is anybody's race tomorrow, as it has been for weeks. This is a close race, and anyone who was going to sit on their hands should take this as a wake-up call.


• The New York Times seriously put these two sentences in the same article, without comment:
  

  1) "That's something that separates me from my opponent — I don't hate Republicans," [Lieberman] said....
  
  2) Mr. Lieberman also said Mr. Lamont was a "center-right Democrat" and not as liberal as Mr. Lamont's antiwar message might suggest. He noted that Mr. Lamont, as a Democratic selectman in Greenwich, frequently cast the same votes as the two other board members, who were Republicans.



• The Chicago Tribune has an interesting article about old friends of Joe who feel obliged to support Ned Lamont, a story that's being told time and time again across the state:
  

  For months, they agonized, unhappy with Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq. "It's the worst blunder in American history in my time," said Tom [Gaines], 83.
  
  But even that was not enough to push the couple into the Lamont camp.
  
  Then came Lieberman's announcement that he would run for re-election as an independent if he loses the Democratic primary. The Gaineses were horrified, fearing that Lieberman's decision would split the party, throw Connecticut's seat to a Republican and deny Democrats the opportunity to take control of the Senate--though polls have indicated Lieberman would win a three-way race.
  
  "He's sacrificing American history for his own ambition," Tom Gaines said. "The worst thing possible is for Republicans to get that seat. I just can't live with that. It's immoral."



• It's the final day of the campaign. And this is what tomorrow is all about:
  

  "You want to stay the course or do you want to change course? do you want to leave the troops in Iraq or is it time to start bringing them home," says Lamont.

  
  Rock the boat.


• Had to link to this from Sunday... Lamont spokesperson Liz Dupont-Diehl absolutely destroyed Lieberman campaign manager (at least for another day) Sean Smith on Fox61's "Beyond the Headlines."


• GOTV. At this point, nothing else matters.

Newsweek:

The New York Times describes Joe's speech tonight as a last-ditch effort that was hotly debated within his own campaign, and hastily re-written up until it was given minutes ago:

The speech, which was added to Mr. Lieberman’s schedule at the last minute, represents a very late attempt by Mr. Lieberman before Tuesday’s election to neutralize or at least limit the threat that his support for the war poses to his re-nomination.

Mr. Lieberman’s advisers said their campaign had been divided on whether the senator should confront his critics head-on and defend his position on the war with new, more pointed language or stick to his game plan of defending himself when the matter arose with reporters or voters.

As late as Saturday night, the advisers said, it was not certain that Mr. Lieberman would deliver the speech. But aides were furiously writing and rewriting it by this afternoon...

Except there is nothing new about Iraq in this speech. Just more of the same. More equivocation and lack of leadership, like he showed on ABC this morning when he sheepishly called Iraq both "better and worse":

It is better now…it, it, it’s better and worse if you’ll allow me to put it that way.

In fact, the only note this speech contains (full prepared text via Steve Gilliard) is the same exact note Lieberman has been hitting since day one - projection.

• The candidate who has outraised and outspent his opponent 2-to-1 says:
  

  Sadly, my opponent has done his best to distort my record, spending at least $4 million of his own money to mislead people into thinking that I am someone I am not.



• The candidate who has continually used tactics worthy of Karl Rove offensively claims:
  

  Not unlike what happened to Max Cleland four years ago.



• The candidate who has avoided talking substantively about the issues the entire race, focusing instead on personal attacks against his opponent (even in radio ads airing today), whines:
  

  The more I have talked to voters in these closing days, the more I am concerned they have been shortchanged in this campaign.... Instead of having an honest discussion about your future, we’re getting negative politics at its worst.



• The candidate who has argued for months that his opponent was actually a Republican, and who even said today that his opponent was a "center-right Democrat," confusingly asserts:
  

  That’s something that separates me from my opponent – I don’t hate Republicans. I know that some times the best way to get things done in the Senate for my constituents is through bipartisan cooperation.



• And finally, the candidate who will not commit to abiding by the decision of Connecticut Democrats on Tuesday says:
  

  If after hearing the truth about where I stand on Iraq, you still want to cast your vote solely on that one issue, then I respect your decision.

  
  (This is an interesting secondary definition of the word "respect," one that Sen. Lieberman uses often: "to screw over while pretending to care about.")

One more last-ditch effort from a flailing, haphazard campaign. A campaign which, at it's core, has not been about any issues, but about one thing and one thing only: defending incumbency and retaining power at any cost.

We'll find out on Tuesday if it worked.

Former state Democratic party chair George Jepsen in a must-read Courant column:

I have known Ned personally for two decades. He is intelligent, accomplished and principled. Blessed with a self-deprecating wit, he will be one senator who does not take himself too seriously. A successful businessman who has grown good jobs with benefits in Connecticut, Ned has also repeatedly given back to his community, including teaching underprivileged children as a volunteer in the Bridgeport public schools.

The Lieberman campaign has made Joe’s bipartisanship a hallmark, contending that Ned will be marginalized in the Senate. Unlike Joe, Ned understands that you don’t need to vote with the Republicans to work effectively with them when bipartisanship is needed for good government. Politics is the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable, one mastered by plenty of congressional Democrats, including Joe’s Connecticut colleagues, who have maintained their ideals while building relationships across the aisle.

Cliff Marlow, of New London, who was with Ned during the accident at Sailfest, in the Norwich Bulletin:

"I think the one thing that sticks in my mind about him is that he comes across as a very sincere individual," Marlow said. "There's nothing phony about him. He's a genuine person. It doesn't seem to be acting when he talks with people."

Hector Sanchez, principal of Harding High in Bridgeport, in the same article:

"He came in every Monday for two periods, and he would bring in other speakers, others who started their own businesses," Sanchez said. "He never made a big deal about it. In fact, there were times when you didn't even know he was here. But he saw the talent that was here, all the potential that the kids had. And he made the commitment."

Sanchez told a story about a student who approached him that day with a problem. She couldn't afford the deposit for college. He said Lamont, and another local businessman at the school that day, each wrote out $1,200 checks to her to cover the deposit, enabling her to go on to college with the help of student loans.

"No one knows about that, because he didn't make a big deal about it," Sanchez said.

Former Sen. and Gov. Lowell Weicker, at Friday's rally:

“Thank God for Ned. He is bright; he is engaging; he has real energy. I have no doubt that he will be one of the finest U.S. senators we've ever had from Connecticut.”

48 hours until polls open... GOTV!

• Is the D.C. Democratic power base finally realizing that candidate Ned Lamont will be a much clearer route to 3 new Democrats in the House from CT? Sounds like it:
  

  Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Friday he is not worried about the fallout from the Senate primary on House races, arguing that the message from Connecticut is that anyone supporting Bush's war policies is in deep trouble. "What's playing out here is that being a rubber stamp for George Bush is politically dangerous to life-threatening," he said.



• So much for Sen. Lieberman attempting to burnish a "positive" image in the last 48 hours of this race. Greg Sargent, who has done as excellent a job as anyone covering the meaningful details of this race, catches Joe's new attack ad against Ned - once again questioning Lamont's position on race. The ad claims:
  

  Born into wealth, Ned Lamont is trying to buy a seat in the United States Senate. Membership may have its privileges, but the Senate isn't one of them.

  
  Take one look at the massive amounts of money Lieberman is raking in in the past 3 days alone. Just leaf through some of the recent 48-hour filings. $4,000 here. $6,000 there. $10,000 there. From D.C. lobbyists. From corporate PACs. From members of the Carlyle Group. (And previously, from neoconservative icon Bill Kristol, who defends Lieberman again in a Weekly Standard article this week.) And then think about the ridiculous claim that Ned is trying to "buy" the seat when Sen. Lieberman is outspending him 2-to-1. And think about the desperation that would cause Sen. Lieberman to charge that Ned Lamont has a race problem. Lamont's sorrowful response really says it all:
  

  "It's terribly disappointing. The idea that the senator at the end of an 18-year career would cast charges like that is very sad."



• "Lieberdem," the only real blog defending Lieberman for the past few weeks, and the site on which now-official Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein posted until last week, throws in the towel:
  

  I don't much care anymore whether Lamont or Lieberman wins this Senate seat. The only outcome that gives me pause at this point is Lamont winning by a narrow enough margin that Lieberman decides stays in the race. The two ways to end this race on Tuesday are through a Lieberman victory or a Lamont rout. I could live with either option, but if you asked me now, I'd probably tell you that I would prefer the latter.
  
  Lamont seems like a progressive and a good man. If he is a man of his word, and there is no indication that he is not, then he will be at least as progressive as Lieberman on most issues, and more progressive on the rest.

  
  For whatever it's worth, I always thought the Lieberdem blog was genuine (aside from Dan Gerstein's posts), and I always respected the fact that someone had the fortitude to step up and defend Sen. Lieberman in the blogosphere.


• Peter Urban on "The kiss that spread democracy":
  

  You've really got to give it up for President George Bush. Although he has struggled with exporting democracy to the Middle East, he's had no trouble delivering it to sleepy Connecticut. All it took was a little kiss....
  
  Most people in the United States do not get a real choice. About 90 percent of incumbents win re-election. The few that lose typically are done in by a scandal — not their stance on an issue. It is why the national media has descended on Connecticut to witness this oddity.
  
  There is no excuse not to participate. If you are a registered Democrat, go to the polls on Tuesday and cast your ballot. (Unaffiliated voters have until noon Monday to register as Democrats). Then take a moment to reflect on how lucky you are to live in a democracy.



• Both Ned and Sen. Lieberman will be featured on This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning.


• What were those letters again? Oh yeah. GOTV. That's what I'll be doing today.

(Note: anonymous comments have been turned off, since traffic is booming and I am not going to be around much to moderate or respond to them.)