From the VFW Post 591/American Legion Post 73 picnic in Wallingford today, honoring CT National Guard troops currently serving in Afghanistan (via a press release):

"We all support our troops 100% but are disappointed by the leadership in Washington," said veteran and picnic organizer Bob Maloney, explaining why Lamont was invited.

"We love Lamont and are so glad he came," Erika Zamudio said tearfully, while holding the hand of her husband, Brian Zamudio, who is home on two weeks leave from Afghanistan.

Members and families of the 102nd Infantry Brigade at the picnic asked Ned to record a video message to send to Afghanistan where the Brigade is currently serving.

Seems that way:

Sending Me E-Mail Or Personal Casework Information

My personal Web site is not set up to collect any personal information about you when you visit the site unless you choose to provide that information. My Web site has an online form that you can use to send me an electronic mail message expressing your views or concerns. To send me an e-mail, the online form asks you for your name, address, and e-mail address. I use this information, if you choose to provide it, to contact you about your issues of interest and/or to provide any casework assistance I can regarding problems you may be experiencing in dealing with a government agency. This information will be available to members of my staff so they can help me in responding to your message or request.

If you are requesting help with a casework matter, it also may be necessary for my office to share the information you provide with the government agency from which you are requesting assistance, in order to respond to your request. My office will not share any personal information communicated through my Web site with any outside organization or individual, except in the following situations: (1) when needed to perform constituent casework at your request; (2) in the course of an authorized law enforcement investigation or emergency posing an imminent risk to public safety; or (3) if you choose to participate in my interactive online E-Government comment page, and authorize me to publish your comment, your name, and the organization you represent.

He forgot: "(4) in a laughable attempt to discredit a political opponent to whom I may have already lost in a primary election by leaking an email of his to the New York Times.":

A campaign aide to Mr. Lieberman alerted a reporter to the e-mail late Friday, after an article about Mr. Lamont’s recent comments appeared in The New York Times. Mr. Lieberman’s Senate office then faxed a copy of the message.

Which "campaign aide" violated Sen. Lieberman's privacy policy? Shouldn't that be a fireable offense?

Late Update: Some more reaction. Atrios asks a very good question:

A rather important - and perhaps legal - question is why a campaign aide has access to constituent letters to Joe's Senate office.

Perhaps legal, indeed. Since when do campaigns have access to constituent communications? Spazeboy makes a good observation:

It doesn’t seem right to me that an e-mail that I send to an elected official could be used against me or made public by that elected official should I choose to run for his seat at some point in the future.

It should unsettle all of us.

Matt Stoller gets the last word:

Lamont clearly was pushing Lieberman to denounce Starr's tactics in 1998. Read the letter, specifically the part where he says that Lieberman's speech was "the beginning of a process that has turned politically and morally offensive", and where he wrote that "mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight."

When Lieberman didn't do what Lamont recommended in the email, it was perfectly reasonable for Lamont to conclude that Lieberman was just grandstanding for the media.

Gerstein (who I assume is the "aide" in the original NYT piece) has less than nothing here, although he got the NYT and now the AP to print it. But he did so in violation of the Senator's own privacy policy. And quite possibly in violation of election law.

Late Late Update: Read the full email below the fold. The email was quite obviously written to crticicize Sen. Lieberman, not to praise him:

Dear Joe:

I reluctantly supported the moral outrage you expressed on September 3. I was reluctant because I thought it might make matters worse; I was reluctant because no one expressed moral outrage over how Reagan treated his kids or how Gingrich lied about supporting term limits (in other words, it was selective outrage); I was reluctant because the Starr inquisition is much more threatening to our civil liberties and national interest than Clinton's misbehavior."

I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end.

Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I'm the father of three and the though that Clinton testifying about oral sex before a grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every medium available.

This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation. If Clinton has a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.

You have expressed your outrage about the president's conduct; now stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess. We all know the facts, a lot more than any of us care to know and should know. We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe should be censured for lying --and let's move on.

It's time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday.

Sincerely,

Ned Lamont
Greenwich Connecticut

cc Sen. Dodd, Rep. Shays

Either Sen. Lieberman enjoys micharacterizing historical documents, or he doesn't actually read emails from his constituents.

Or both.

I actually haven't had much time to read Joe's blog in the past week. But Don Michak of the Journal-Inquirer has, and found this gem from Dan Gerstein in the comments:

Gerstein also vowed to personally investigate the matter of Republican contributions to the Lieberman campaign, saying he didn't think the senator had "taken a significant amount of money from registered Republicans."

How about William Batoff, a big-time fundraiser for Bush-Cheney in both 2000 and 2004, who gave Lieberman $5,000 in the days before the primary?

How about Bill Kristol?

How about anonymous big-time D.C. Republican fundraisers like this one in June?

"Lieberman has been a more loyal American and a real leader for our nation than some of the men we have on our side of the aisle in the Senate," says a Republican fundraiser. "I don't want to see Lieberman lose to a leftist nut like Ned Lamont."

How about anonymous big-time D.C. Republican fundraisers like this one in August?

A Republican campaign fund-raiser based in Washington, who spoke on condition that he not be identified by name, said,“There’s a definite sense among a significant number of the Republicans who I deal with that Joe Lieberman is a man of principle and a man we should support.”

This fund-raiser said he’ll contribute money to Lieberman’s campaign and raise money for him.

And how about Republican PR front groups buying ads for Lieberman?

And most of this was from before the primary. Now that most Democrats' pocketbooks have closed, and Republicans nationally and locally have chosen to completely abandon Schlesinger, the contributions from Republicans must have increased dramatically.

What's most interesting about all this is how Gerstein and Lieberman are trying with all their might to deny ties to Republicans, while happily accepting Republican financial and rhetorical support, as well as hiring a "Democrat-slaying" Republican pollster to help turn out Republican voters.

If Sen. Lieberman's campaign depends on turning out Republican votes and raising Republican money, which it so obviously does, then why is he so vehemently denying all of it?

On the one hand, Sen. Lieberman wants to continue to attack Ned Lamont as being an Al-Qaeda appeaser, in the recent rhetorical tradition of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. On the other hand, he's now trying to paint himself as - somehow - a harsh critic of the Iraq war. Lieberman spokesperson Tammy Sun tells the New Haven Register:

"Joe Lieberman has nothing but the utmost respect for the men and women of our armed forces, especially those who served in Iraq, which is why he has repeatedly and harshly criticized the Bush administration for not having a plan to win the peace, not putting enough troops on the ground, or including enough allies," she said.

In March 2005, these were Sen. Lieberman's words, in a now-famous New Yorker piece:

Lieberman is a study in the dangers of steroidal muscularity, becoming an outlier in his own party. (He has edged to the right as his running mate in the 2000 election, Al Gore, has moved leftward.) His fate was sealed with a kiss, planted on his cheek by Bush, just after the President delivered his State of the Union address. “That may have been the last straw for some of the people in Connecticut, the blogger types,” Lieberman told me. But he is unapologetic about his defense of Bush’s Iraq policy, saying, “Bottom line, I think Bush has it right.” When I asked if he was becoming a neoconservative, Lieberman smiled and said, “No, but some of my best friends are neocons.”

Even Lieberman's supporters must find this laughable. Many of them support him because he supports Bush. But like Republicans around the country, even Lieberman is now trying to run away from Bush.

Bottom line, it won't work.

A reader emails to say that Sen. Lieberman's office is not taking a position on John Bolton's nomination to the UN.

Bolton's nomination was opposed by Sen. Chafee (R-RI) this week, which led the GOP to cancel the planned committee vote.

And Sen. Dodd has surprisingly taken the lead among Senate Dems in fighting the nomination, should it make it to a floor vote:

The nomination was also stymied by the campaign led by Dodd. Since he returned to work Tuesday after Congress' summer recess, Dodd has been gauging opinion among Democrats, and Thursday was ready to use a filibuster - a tool he rarely uses - to stop the confirmation.

He said he was still disturbed by reports that Bolton tried first to get intelligence analysts to change their views to match his, and then tried to get those analysts fired. Bolton has said he never intended to have anyone dismissed.

Dodd was not convinced. "He stepped over the line," the senator said Thursday.

Bobby McGee, a new front-pager at CT Local Politics, gives Dodd some much-deserved praise on this:

I think it's refreshing to see that Dodd is willing to stand up to the president on their disastrous handling of foreign and diplomatic affairs. I am not very optimistic about his presidential hopes, mostly because he hasn't come out strongly for any big issues. This seems to be a nice change.

Indeed. Kudos, Sen. Dodd. What a contrast with the state's junior senator, who refuses, apparently, to even take a position.

Why doesn't Sen. Lieberman agree with Sen. Dodd on this?

Jacqueline Salit, Director of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party whose Independence Party (NY) supported Mayor Bloomberg in 2005, today called on the Sec. of State to withold certification of Sen. Lieberman's ballot application on technical grounds, and criticized Sen. Lieberman's continuing self-identification as an Independent:

"There is mounting concern among independent voters in Connecticut that Mr. Lieberman's so called 'independent candidacy' is a fraud on the voting public," states Salit. "He is not an independent, but is rather a Democrat who availed himself of an escape hatch in state Election Law allowing to reinvent himself as an 'independent-in-name-only' candidate after he lost his own party's primary."

John Mertens, the Independent Party CT candidate for Senate, also strongly told Sen. Lieberman he had no claim to the "Independent" label two weeks ago:

"He absolutely should not be using the word 'independent,' " Mertens said. "Technically someone who petitions onto the ballot is unaffiliated -- not independent. He has no affiliation whatsoever with the Independent Party. That gets my dander up."

Lies and the Lying Senator Edition:

• The Greenwich Time reports on the Lieberman website blogroll originally linking to a picture of Osama bin Laden with a Ned Lamont sticker on his head:
  

  Beneath the photo, which was posted on Aug. 29 by the unidentified operator of the Web site and remained there yesterday, it says "Four out of Five Terrorists Agree - Lamont for Senate!"
  
  "As soon as we saw it, we immediately pulled it down," Lieberman campaign spokeswoman Tammy Sun said. "We condemn things like this. It has no place in our political discourse or on our Web site."

  
  Um... it was posted on their blogroll. Apparently anyone can post a link to Lieberman's blogroll (Update: or not), but you'd think they'd at least review the content before putting it up.
  
  Not that it really matters, of course. Lieberman's team routinely scours the web for a single offensive comment, which they then type up in big bold letters in a press release painting all Lamont supporters with the same broad brush. So using their own standard, the site in question, named "No to Ned" (which has not even taken the photo down yet), must obviously must be representative of all Lieberman supporters, right? Using their own standard, this must be the face of the entire "civil" Lieberman campaign:
  

  

  
  Of course, the idea that this post is representative of Lieberman supporters isn't any truer than the idea that a single offensive commenter is representative of Lamont supporters. But - given their previous statements - that's something you'll never hear the Lieberman campaign admit. So let them defend Osama bin-Lamont.


• Spazeboy documents even more "civility":
  

  Dan Gerstein, at Joe’s blog today:
  
  Many of the commenters have engaged in direct personal attacks, not just against Joe Lieberman but our staff.
  
  Eric Blankenbaker, at Joe’s blog Tuesday:
  
  Liz is so blinded by her angry partisanship that she can’t tell the difference between big “D” Democratic and small “d” democratic.
  
  If you happen to work for Joe, and write for his blog, it’s OK to direct angry personal attacks at Ned Lamont campaign staff members over typographical errors.
  
  If you happen to be a commenter at Joe’s blog, well…you’ll be held to a higher standard than Dan holds Eric.

  
  
• David Sirota documents from personal experience how comfortable Dan Gerstein is with lying for political benefit:
  

  ... we now know Dan Gerstein is a fabricator - a guy who is totally comfortable with knowing the truth, ignoring it, and spreading vicious lies about people. He’s not a distorter, he’s not a spinner, he’s not a misleader - by the dictionary’s definition, he is a liar.



• And one of Sen. Lieberman's former pollsters pleaded guilty yesterday to charges of fabricating poll results:
  

  The owner of DataUSA Inc., a company that conducted political polls for the campaigns of President Bush, Sen. Joe Lieberman and other candidates, pleaded guilty to fraud for making up survey and poll results....

Take a look at the amazing crowd that showed up to tonight's volunteer meeting in New Haven (live blogging via the omnipresent Eric Tung):

It’s probably 85 degrees and very muggy in the the 205 Church Street 3rd Congressional District Ned Office as almost 150 volunteers meet to learn about how they can help Ned and be a cause for change. Several old faces were in the crowd, but what was most prmoising were the many new faces that we met at our event tonight!!

There were so many people, they spilled out of the office, and through the halls. All types of people, young and old, listened intently, if somewhat sweatily, as they learned about Phone Banking, Friends/Family/Neighbors, and door-knocking opportunities. They also learned more about opportunities to meet Ned and to invite even more friends into the campaign.

This is what keeps Sen. Lieberman awake at night.

You.

Other regional volunteer meetings are being held this weekend and early next week at the Willimantic, New London, and the brand-new East Norwalk offices.

Update: There were well over 100 volunteers at the 1st CD meeting in West Hartford tonight too:



Astounding turnouts for both meetings...

More "civility" (and an even more massive amount of projection) from Sen. Lieberman today:

[Sen. Lieberman] fired back, calling Lamont's stance on the war "dangerous," and complained, "at some point my opponent has to start dealing with fact and not just be a perpetual whiner."

Forget about the Senator famous for his whining whining about his opponent's supposed whining. More important is that Sen. Lieberman has not been "dealing with fact" for Iraq for years.

Time's Michael Ware, November 2005:

"I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

Sen. Reid (D), December 2005:

"I've spoken to Joe Lieberman and he knows he's out there alone [on Iraq]. I mean, literally alone. Joe is a fine man, he has strong feelings, but he’s just alone. Even Republicans don't agree with Joe."

Real leaders like Sen. Hagel (R) have had the courage to "deal with fact" on Iraq.

But Sen. Lieberman, as always on this issue, is dealing in fiction.

And failing our troops in doing so.

The message of the new Ned Lamont ad launched today is sober and simple: Sen. Lieberman's support of the Bush-Cheney policy in Iraq has made us less safe, at a terribly high cost to our country.

And continuing to support politicians who support failed policies at home is one of the worst possible disservices to our heroic servicemembers and their families.

Watch the ad, and tell Sen. Lieberman his continued support of Bush's failed policies - and his acceptance of TV ads from right-wing forces like Bill Kristol and Dan Senor who were key architects and managers of these failed policies - does not support our troops:



This election is serious. It's about changing course in Iraq, and changing failed policies at home and abroad. Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove all desperately want Sen. Lieberman to stay the Senate so he can continue to defend their failed policies.

For all the talk about Lieberman being appointed Sec. of Defense or some other Bush cabinet position (talk about the DoD position specifically goes back almost a year to this Daily News piece), it's telling that the most Sen. Lieberman can ever muster is a non-denial denial.

Connecticut voters - and especially Connecticut Democrats, the party to which Sen. Lieberman still claims to be so "devoted" - deserve to know whether the Senator will stay in office longer than a few months if he were to win.

Will Sen. Lieberman unequivocally rule out accepting any appointment to the Bush cabinet while he is a sitting Senator?

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank has a very different take on what has been described elsewhere as an almost triumphant return to D.C. for Joe:

You could feel the temperature drop as Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut entered the Senate chamber yesterday for the first time since he lost his Democratic primary last month and became an independent candidate.

Democratic leaders Richard Durbin (Ill.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.) kept a safe distance. Christopher Dodd (Conn.) gave him a perfunctory handshake. Harry Reid (Nev.), the minority leader, turned his back; when Lieberman approached, Reid indulged him in a quick handshake then quickly busied himself in another conversation....

"Hey, you know, that's politics," Senator Pariah told reporters who besieged him off the Senate floor. Lieberman reported that, privately, "some of the Democrats said, 'Sorry it didn't turn out better, but we hope you come back.' " He added, wryly, "I won't disclose which one said that."

It probably wasn't Dodd. Speaking to reporters off the Senate floor, he chided Lieberman sharply. "Joe made a decision to do what he wanted to do, and other people respect the decision by voters," he said angrily. "You don't just disregard that, okay?"

Update: m palmer in the comments:

"I won't disclose which one said that."

One.

Sen. Biden displays the singular brand of respect for Democratic voters that will surely result in some Joementum of his very own in time for the 2008 primaries:

“I don’t think there’s any of us out there saying ‘Goddamn, I hope Joe doesn’t win,’” said Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who has endorsed Lamont in the general election.

The Hill also recaps Ned Lamont's press conference this morning in D.C.

All of this talk of "pivoting" or "carving out middle ground" is really misplaced. Anyone who's ever heard Ned's stump speech, or seem him answer questions from voters at public event after public event, knows that he is at his core a very moderate Democrat. Hopefully reporters are now starting to realize that too.

Joe's blog attacks Ned Lamont for having the audacity to respect his opponent. Ned this morning:

"I know the man. I respect the man. He's a man of integrity…"

Would Sen. Lieberman make the same statement about Ned?

Tells you all you need to know, really...

Ned in D.C. this morning said a hypothetical Sen. Lamont (D) wouldn't back the Senate confirmation of Lieberman as Sec. of Defense:

Replacing Rumsfeld with Lieberman, Lamont said, would be "a lateral move."...

Pressed on whether he would vote to confirm Lieberman, Lamont said, "I don't think I would."

Discussing Lieberman, he said, "I know the man. I respect the man. He's a man of integrity... but he's been so wrong on one of the biggest issues of the day."

In other - non-hypothetical - Senate confirmation news, Sen. Dodd has said he will lead the opposition to the nomination John Bolton to the UN after his recess appointment last year:

He intends to address the Senate Democratic Caucus to make his case, make a speech to the full Senate and argue against approval by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when it meets Thursday.

"My objection isn't that he's a bully," said Dodd, D-Conn., when Bolton appeared before the committee recently, "but that he's been an ineffective bully and can't win the day when it really counts."

Will Sen. Lieberman follow Sen. Dodd's lead in opposing Bolton's nomination?

• Sen. Lieberman admits he has no plan for Iraq, tells Connecticut voters they will have to wait a few weeks until he comes up with one:
  

  Mr. Lieberman also promised a speech later this month detailing his stance on the war in Iraq. In recent weeks, Mr. Lieberman has said that he believes that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld should resign, but he has also reiterated his support for the war, saying that leaving early would create a more dangerous world.
  
  Asked by reporters to give details of his stance on how to withdraw troops from Iraq, Mr. Lieberman said that he would have to delay their gratification a while longer.

  
  There's no mention of Iraq policy anywhere on Sen. Lieberman's new website. Update: A section on Iraq seems to have now been added. Same old rhetoric.


• Ned Lamont (D) returns to Harding High in Bridgeport, where he was a volunteer teacher, to introduce his education plan and take questions from students:
  

  One of the students asked what his goals are if he becomes a U.S. senator. Lamont mentioned Iraq, saying it's "time to start bringing the troops home." He also pledged to "invest in great schools like Harding High."
  
  During the earlier Hartford press conference, Lamont, who made his fortune selling television and Internet access to colleges, distributed an eight-page education plan.
  
  "We must rethink the entire educational pipeline from birth through college," the booklet announces in an opening section.
  
  "Washington has dithered long enough. It is in our nation's greatest tradition, and consistent with our generation's responsibilities, that we act and act now," the booklet states.

  
  Dan Gerstein responds to this disgraceful partisan political act of proposing an actual hopeful policy for the future:
  

  "If this is the Lamont campaign showing they can do something besides being negative and attacking, they need to go back to campaign school. What do they have to hide?" Gerstein said.

  
  The pdf of the plan is here. The Courant also covers the education plan.


• A right-wing magazine of dubious credibility claims that Rove had GOP donors funnel millions to Lieberman in advance of the primary (if so, a lot of good that did him). They also claim that, in return, a deal was made with Lieberman to vote with Republicans on some issues and vote to reach 50-50 ties on others so that Cheney can break the tie. I'd dismiss it entirely except for the fact that it reveals that some on the right wing don't seem to be too happy about Rove's and Bush's overt backing of Lieberman. There may be more tension on the right - at least nationally - over this race than is readily apparent.


• Speaking of the right wing, Joe's new blog links to a picture of Osama bin Laden wearing a Ned Lamont bumper sticker on his turban. I'm sure a link to the Free Republic is coming any day now. "Civility!" Update: Matt at Emboldened goes through Joe's blogroll in detail:
  

  No to Ned - An offensive, anti-Lamont blog that posted a picture of bin Laden wearing a Ned Lamont sticker - which must be what Joe’s talking about when he calls for civility in politics. Five total posts.
  Joe Lieberman in 2006 - Complains of “the anti-war left” and has three total posts. The author, Chris Arnell, also writes this blog, which is obsessed with Muslim violence (including this sickeningly titled post, “D.U.I.I. - Driving Under Islamic Influence“).
  Joe for Progress - This looks like it wants to be a blogging community. From what I can tell it has one author, two total posts, and a blogroll containing pretty much the same sites as Joe’s campaign blog - Bull Moose, Austin Centrist, Maverick Views, & Moderate Voters - as well as six news and policy sites....

(Bumped.) While Joe Lieberman asks us to think about the "good stuff," while he still fails to call for any real Bush administration accountability on Iraq, and while accepts TV ads from a Bush-supporting Republican PR firm comprised of many of the same actors who bungled the Iraq war and its aftermath (including Dan Senor and Bill Kristol), the continuing debacle in Iraq continues unabated:

As of Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2006, at least 2,654 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

This includes three heroic servicemembers from Connecticut who have been killed in action in the last few days alone:

• Marine Cpl. Jordan Pierson of Milford, age 21:
  

  For hours during the Sunday wake, his tribe of friends manned the parking lot while much of the town shuffled past the impossibility in the casket. Impossible that this is the Jordan who was once a center for the wild energies of his friends. Impossible that the 21-year-old could take a form that didn't feature the mischief of his toothy smile.



• Marine Lance Cpl. Philip A. Johnson of Enfield, age 19:
  

  "He was hell-bent on being a Marine," said Ron Jackman of Longmeadow, Mass., a family friend who was serving as the Johnson family spokesman. "When he found out he was going to Iraq, he was hell-bent on going. He had no fear whatsoever."



• Army Pfc. Nicholas Madaras of Wilton, age 19:
  

  According to the Department of Defense Pfc. Nicholas Madaras, 19, died on September 3, in Baqubah, Iraq. He died from injuries he suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his dismounted patrol during combat operations. Madaras was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.

Sen. Lieberman has failed our troops by blindly supporting failed policies.

Support our troops. Elect Ned Lamont (D).

Looks like it's finally up.

In the first two posts we find Dan Gerstein calling Lamont supporters "over-exuberant" (yes, this is the same person who went on a screaming rampage with a Courant columnist last week) and another blogger calling out Ned Lamont's press secretary on - I kid you not - grammar.

Doesn't exactly look like it will be a "must read."

Update: jacqui at MLN hits on exactly what rings false about this entire effort:

The biggest thing, however, about joe2006.com's new look, is that he has a "blog for joe" sign-up section so you can make your very own pro-Joe blog. Here's where it's really clear that Joe just doesn't get it. As if blogging were some top-down political proposition.

Wake up, Joe! Blogging is the grassroots enabled by technology. Blogging is a conversation. Blogging isn't formed by politicians. People don't go to an elected official and ask permission to blog about them. It's really unbelievable.

There are, in fact, about three or four blogs linked from the Joe2006.com blogroll that have all been created in the past week or two. "Top-down," indeed.

• A 19-year old Marine from Enfield was killed in action this weekend in Iraq.


• The NY Times, Courant, and Danbury News-Times all seemed to have a hard time finding any non-Republicans supporting Joe along the parade route. The Times unfortunately bought into Joe's "Second Round" B.S. with their headline, but noted Sen. Lieberman himself bragged about the support he was getting from "McCainiacs." The Courant found a Joepublican who said "I think he will have a lot of Republican support on Election Day." The News-Times noted that Lamont had by far the largest contingent of supporters in the parade, and also pointed out Joe's GOP support:
  

  "I'm a registered Republican," said George Zoghbi, of Avon. "But I've been a supporter of Joe since he ran for attorney general."
  
  There were also strong pockets of support for Lieberman along the route -- often, like Zoghbi, Republicans who will march across party lines when they vote in November.
  
  "We are Lieberman supporters and we are conservative Republicans," said Russell DeMarco, who was at the parade with his wife, Diana...

  
  Tim at the official blog has some great photos.


• Ned Lamont will introduce his education plan today at events in Hartford, Bridgeport, and Stamford (from a press release):
  

  "We must rethink the entire educational pipeline," said Lamont. "There are too many signs that we are falling behind."
  
  Lamont will teach classes at Capital Community College in Hartford and Harding High School in Bridgeport today as part of the plan's rollout. It addresses the need for universal high-quality pre-school, after-school activities, help paying for college, and math and science enhancements.



• Matt Browner-Hamlin discusses the issues surrounding Lieberman's seniority. While Reid and Schumer are loathe to even talk about it, they really need to clearly address it. "Seniority" will be one of Joe's main talking points in the coming weeks, and - just like his pre-primary bloviating about being 100% focused on winning the primary - might be proven completely false in the end.

"When I bump into Sen. Lieberman I'll say 'watch out' because we're going after the same voters."

- Alan Schlesinger (R-CT) at the Newtown Labor Day Parade today.

Another great AP headline - "Lieberman marches alone as former allies surround Lamont" - and an equally great lede:

While prominent Connecticut Democrats surrounded U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont at an annual Labor Day parade Monday in Newtown, the three-term incumbent marched several blocks behind with a group of campaign volunteers, a gap that symbolized his split with the party stalwarts who once supported him.

ATalbot and Sue (with Lorenzo) filed reports at My Left Nutmeg.

While Lonesome Joe lagged behind with few supporters, Ned marched near Chris Murphy (CT-05), for whom he helped raise over $10,000 this weekend online via an email.

(Update and Bumped: CTBob has video of the parade.)

I agree with Atrios. Joe's new blog - if it includes comments at all - is likely to be used solely as flypaper for trolls which they can then quote and send out press releases about. His campaign is already forwarding reporters press releases about offensive anti-Joe comments found on other websites. I'm sure they'll be shocked - shocked! - to find offensive comments in an open online forum!

So don't fall for it. And if the new blog is indeed a genuine effort at engaging his supporters online, more power to him (although I wouldn't hold out much hope for that).

It's also worth noting that this won't be Lieberman's first dalliance with official blogging. Anyone else remember 2003-2004's "Blog for Joe"? (As opposed to Dean's "Blog for America," of course.) The Wayback Machine does:

"blogforjoe (n.): BlogforJoe is the official blog of Joe Lieberman's campaign for President in 2004. Check back often for news and views on all the latest developments in the campaign. Post your own comments, and invite your friends to do the same! Joe Lieberman's campaign is one of ideas -- add your own!"

Way back in February, in the very first post on LamontBlog, I wrote the following:

I hope this site will be a central clearinghouse for news and information relating to Ned Lamont's 2006 primary campaign vs. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). While this is certainly a pro-Lamont blog, be assured that this site is unfunded, unofficial, and unaffiliated with any campaign. (Any change to this will be noted prominently.)

Consider this a change that is being noted prominently. As of tomorrow (Sept. 5th), I will be taking an official position with the Lamont campaign with the internet department. I will be primarily doing production work behind the scenes, as well as some blogging on the official site. I am very excited about being able to help out in this new capacity for the next two months.

I will also continue to write on LamontBlog - with the campaign's permission - under a clear disclosure of my new position. All previous posts have been completely unauthorized by the campaign (though obviously, hardly objective). Since the day I started LamontBlog in February, the work I have tried to do here has been single-mindedly focused on getting Ned elected to the Senate. That obviously won't change now.

Looking back on that first post, written before Ned even officially announced his run, I also wrote this:

Opportunities such as this, both to change the party and to change the national conversation, do not arise often in politics. I hope to explain in detail in later posts why I believe Ned Lamont's candidacy presents just such a golden opportunity: why he should run, why he can win, and why the race itself will - win or lose - be a greatly positive exercise for both Connecticut and the nation.

I believe all of the above is true, and I believe achieving all of the above is possible.

I still believe all of this this is true, and more than ever, I believe it is possible.

A preview of January 2007:

Senate nominee Ned Lamont, right, shares a laugh with Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., while campaigning together at the Haddam Neck Fair (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)

Sep. 3, 2006

The AP headline says it all about today's unifying event: "Former Lieberman Allies Rally Around Lamont At Party Picnic".

Sen. Dodd intodudced Lieberman at the convention... and introduced Ned Lamont (D) today:

While [Lieberman] stayed out of the public eye Sunday, political allies with whom he'd campaigned and served for decades - including fellow U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd - cheered on his Democratic opponent, Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont, with the same adoration they once showered upon Lieberman....

"Most of those folks have been very active for a long time, so this is a chance for me today to thank them for being so supportive," Lamont said at Sunday's picnic, where he was cheered with a standing ovation and chants of "Ned, Ned, Ned!" when Dodd introduced him.

And Rep. Larson (CT-1) hits Joe hard, using perhaps the harshest possible analogy for a "turncoat" (at least in Connecticut):

U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., likened Lieberman to Johnny Damon, a Boston Red Sox player whose move to the rival New York Yankees horrified Boston team loyalists.

True fans remained loyal to the Red Sox despite grieving the loss of a favorite player, just as many Democrats remain loyal to the party despite Lieberman's absence, Larson said.

"It's an unusual circumstance and it's very difficult for people like me, and those of us who've known and worked with Joe Lieberman for so many years," Larson said, "but the fact is, he's not on our team."

An amazing 84 104 120 people have already signed up to march with Ned at the Newtown parade tomorrow. Sign up or just show up tomorrow to march the route with Ned Lamont (D) and the rest of the Democratic team.

Sen. Lieberman (Lieberman) will also be gracing the parade with his presence for the first time this century. (Wonder if he'll be marching with Nancy Johnson again...)

After the parade, join Ned in nearby Danbury for a meet-and-greet at the Danbury Democratic HQ at 12:30pm.

Kirby (posting at CTBob) notes that the airwaves in CT have been hit with a deluge of Lieberman ads this morning, payed for by the overwhelmingly pro-Republican US Chamber of Commerce, who are also running ads in CT for Rep. Johnson (R) and Rep. Simmons (R):

This morning on the Sunday talk shows I've seen the Lieberman is great ad from the US Chamber of commerce 5 times. Yes, the same US Chamber of Commerce that is running ads for Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons. Read more here and here

This in advance of the Swift Boat Veterans for Lieberman Freedom ads that are due to start running this week.

"Team Connecticut" seems to consist almost entirely of D.C-based corporate pro-Republican PACs, a Republican governor, Republican congressmen, D.C. Republican lobbyists, Republican PR firms related to the Swift Boaters, D.C.-based Republican fundraisers and donors, Republican neoconservative ideologues, the Republican national leadership... and Joe Lieberman.

A letter today in the News-Times (Danbury):

I commend Newtown First Selectman Herb Rosenthal and the Democratic Town Committee for politely, but firmly, insisting that U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman participate in the Newtown Labor Day parade as what he is: the candidate who decisively lost the Connecticut Democratic primary in an historically high turnout of voters.

This is not merely a matter of protocol. Connecticut taxpayers paid for a statewide primary election.

Senator Lieberman's opponent, businessman Ned Lamont, pledged to endorse the winner.

In one of the most graceless displays of any recent political campaign, Senator Lieberman not only refused to back the winner, but following his defeat, decreed that he will not allow the primary voters' choice "to stand."

Worse yet, Senator Lieberman, who engaged in exactly the same type of opportunistic gamesmanship by simultaneously running for vice president and his Senate seat in 2000, claims his decision to ignore the results of an election in which he chose to run is a matter of principle and a "higher calling."

Mr. Rosenthal and Newtown's Democrats have done the right thing; telling Senator Lieberman that in demanding an election do-over, the only "calling" he is following is the preservation of his own career.

David Atkins
SANDY HOOK

As I wrote on primary night, Lieberman really has a hard time accepting losing (at least to Democrats). Compare his "graceless" performance on primary night this August to his similar performance on primary night in New Hampshire in January 2004, when he tried to paint a 5th-place finish in single digits in a state he had been literally living in for weeks as some sort of "victory":

Thank you. Let me ask you this: is New Hampshire a great state or what? You bet it is.

Based on the returns that we've seen tonight, thanks to the people of New Hampshire, we are in a three way split decision for third place.

Now you and I both know that the national pundits didn't expect this, did they? As a matter of fact this morning, the national newspapers put four of the candidates on their front page -- but not me.

But today, the people of New Hampshire put me in the ring, and that's where we're going to stay.

Today New Hampshire's next-door neighbor candidates, John Kerry and Howard Dean, received most of the vote, but the rest was split, with no clear decision reached. And let me put it to you this way: for us, this is more than a campaign, isn't it? It is a cause, and we're ready to take that cause now to the rest of America.