Or, maybe the Gore/Lieberman strategists decided after Gore's first debate that they needed to look more civil. Damn, I hate having to defend Joe, but here I am.

It was amusing that Cheney got away with saying that his Halliburton money has "absolutely nothing to do" with government, though.

I agree. Joe helped himself by turning in a worthy debate performance, but, the problem remains that he has been towing the Republican Party's line contrary to the wishes of his constituents.

Yes, Joe you get credit for taking a principled stand, but the principles you have elected to stand on are not the principles of your constituents.

I think it is time for him to go.

Agreed!

"It's not just the war, stupid!"

Sheila in CT

Kiss up, kick down, as they say.

Totally agree with the post...But the snide reference to Lieberman being a "Nice Jewish Boy" was disgusting and totally vile...There is no need for it...I am Jewish, hate Joe Lieberman with a passion and have given to Ned Lamont...However, this comment was over the line and, combined with the reference to "Old Testamental" got very close to the anti-semetic line...

Lamont is a sweet guy but he did not know how to answer Lieberman with hard facts or to point out that it is one thing to vote with Greenwich Republicans for more money for education in Greenwich and ANOTHER to vote with BUSH for the Iraq war. I am dissapointed that Lamont did not point out that Lieberman was SILENT when BUSH LIED about weapons of mass destruction. When will Democratic candidates learn how to hit HARD against terrible policies? Soft language has not helped the Democrats at all. I fear that the liberals in the Democratic Party were conditioned during the post- WWII witch hunts to trim their language. Liberals in the twenty first century have to use strong language to attack anti-social policies in the way they used strong language to attack MONARCHY in the 19th century. And they could begin by attacking Bush's attempt to subvert a Constitution designed to prevent the emergence of monarchy.

Joe's strategy was pretty obvious: with the spotlight on, start his campaign to win over Republicans and Independents immediately. His performance had nothing to do with wooing Democratic voters, whom he has effectively ceded to Lamont.

It will be VERY interesting to see how Joe interacts with Lamont and the Republican candidate in the coming campaign. Which candidate will Joe share more common ground with, the liberal Dem or the conservative Republican? I think we can guess...

This has to be one of the dumber posts I've seen in a while. Let's see if I have it straight: Lieberman is the Jew who wants acceptance in the corridors of power (never mind that in 2000 he was a two-term United States Senator) dominated by gentiles so he goes easy on them in national televised debates...except when confronted with old gentile money, in which case he's much tougher in debate.

Sure, that makes sense...NOT.

How about a simpler explanation.  In 2000, the Democratic ticket was confident of victory.  Furthermore, the conventional wisdom at the time was that Cheney would come across as genial and low-key and for Lieberman to come across as a snarling attack dog would have backfired...big time, as they say.  In 2000, Cheney did not have his current reputation as the Prince of Darkness. He got generally got reviews as Defense Secretary during the Gulf War and had been out of power for 8 years.

Lieberman's whole persona is that of the bipartisan above-the-fray statesman.  What's made that possible of course is that he always had rock-solid bipartisan support at home.  Now that he's in jeopardy, he realizes he needs to shift a bit.  That's what politicians do.

Actually, if we manage to saddle a potential McCain indy bid with Lieberman as VP it'll be well worth it. McCain as an indy would be the most serious challenge to the two party system since Teddy Roosevelt; with Lieberman along for the ride it'd be reduced to the status of a joke. Bring it on!

Yes, this makes sense. With his anger, Lieberman has made it clear he does not respect the process, or the Democratic voter. It's Joe time, and this debate is his best first opportunity to get the message out the un-democrats.

For crying out loud, what is he doing on stage with Ned? If he is going to run without the nomination, why does the party provide him with a forum to attack the party?

And for the person who rated my original comment a "0".  I think Lamont's inexperience in the political arena made Joe Lieberman look like a world class debater this time...he looked very "ordinary" when he debated Cheney.

But feel free to troll rate my comments even if only in disagreement on the points I am trying to make.

Joe did incalculable damage to himself last night. Lamont won because Joe kept punching himself in the face. I predict Lamont in the primary by a wide margin. Here's my reasoning.

First is the fact that Lamont voters are very motivated. Even those still supporting Joe can't be happy with him.

Second, primary voters tend to trend older than general election voters. Joe, not once but repeatedly kept using Ronald Reagan's line against Carter "there you go again." It was a blatant rip off of Reagan, and a terrible move for someone fighting off the perception that he's really a Republican at heart. It might have played in a general election debate, but in a primary where your audience is old enough to remember that line clearly?

By normal debate standards joe won handily, but that was such an incredibly boneheaded thing to do that i think it's going to cost him dearly. Couple that with his petition movement to run as an indie, and I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario where primary voters have any reason to vote for him at all.

The problem is that Joe wasn't ceding the Democratic faithful to Lamont, he was throwing them at him. Quoting Reagan, for god's sake? Joe needs a lot of the Dems to stay in his corner to win as an indie, and this wasn't the way to do it.

Let me clarify and elaborate. McCain and Lieberman are establishment politicians all the way. No one has been on Meet The Press more than these two and contributed less to the national debate. Only in this world of media consolidation could the candidacy of McCain Lieberman be taken seriously as shock to the system.

You heard it here first! McCain won’t win the Rs nomination. He will do as poorly as Lieberman did in 04! They will be each others last resort. And Tim Russert will be there to paint their desperation as a genuine alternative to establishment politics, their records be damned.

McCain is a conservative who is shedding the strange “Democratic clothing” he earned in the 2000 primary. Lieberman is doing the same thing. This marriage is inevitable! The National Democrats and Connecticut Democrats need to dump Lieberman now, not provide him with a forum for his next Presidential run!

I think it was Mondale, not Carter. But yes, I'm sure many of us oldsters were struck by how Republican it was for Joe to say that.

Sheila in CT

Brad the Dad,

Let's see if I have it straight: Lieberman is the Jew who wants acceptance in the corridors of power (never mind that in 2000 he was a two-term United States Senator) dominated by gentiles so he goes easy on them in national televised debates...except when confronted with old gentile money, in which case he's much tougher in debate..

Still.  This could be a great Philip Roth story.  Now, how smart is it of the Lieberman campaign to lash out at CT Jews for drifting away from his act (as reported by the JTA)?

Jewish fund-raisers canvassed by JTA said they favored Lieberman -- even those who profoundly disagree with him on Iraq.

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....

Lieberman's backers attribute the shift to opposition to the Iraq war. Jewish opposition to the war has always outpaced general opposition.

"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."

Volvo Liberal,

Gitlin is Jewish too.  So, why the geshrei?  So the nations notice we don't lock step.  Besides, Lieberman's own campaign is playing the card in a far shlockier way.  Check it 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."

Yes, Lieberman's favorite issue is himself!

Well--I suspect that McCain will be on the '08 ballot one way or another, to get his record in front of "all the voters." However, I doubt he's dumb enough to stick himself with Lieberman as a running mate.

Your assessment of these two as media whores bringing little to the policy table is pretty right on but that's not how they're perceived. There's no question to me a McCain independent candidacy would jumble the map; I rather suspect he wouldn't finish third in a three way race.

Well, now I'm showing my age but I'm sure I remembered Ronny saying this in a debate with Mondale (and since I was only 14 during that Carter debate, I don't think I was following all that closely back then), so I looked it up and it turns out he said it to Carter AND Mondale.

And yup, I picked it up immediately when Joe said it -- it just hurts my head to think someone calling themselves a Democrat would ape this particular phrase. Ouch!

Sheila in CT

Why in the world didn't Lamont turn to Lieberman and say,

"Joe, what are your plans if you do not win this primary? Is your statement true that you will leave the Democratic Party and change to an Independent? If so, why should any Democrat vote for you? Where is your loyalty to the process?"

Why didn't he say that? It wouldn't even have needed thinking on his feet? It was a predictably good question, and one that is important for voters to hear an answer to.

Jan Knaus

Excellent comment, and thanks for using my name :)

Reagan used it against Carter in 1980, and then he tried to use it again in the second debate against Mondale, who answered:

VICE PRESIDENT MONDALE: Mr. President, you said, "There you again." All right. Remember the last time you said that? You said it when President Carter said you were going to cut Medicare, and you said, "Oh no, there you go again Mr. President." And what did you do right after the election? You went out and tried to cut $20 billion out of Medicare. And so, when you say, "There you go again," people remember this.

Mondale did poorly in the election, but in the second debate he was the clear victor.

i would love to know why ned wasn't better prepped.

why it was that he was so unwilling[or unable] to go for joe's jugular.

is it because his polls inform him that the ct electorate really want a fascist bastid as its senator?

or is ned just over his head?

i don't live in ct. i gave ned some money. i don't think i shall give him any more.

such a failure to be prepared. such a failure to assault joe, is just another dem failing in a long history of failing to go for the republican[fascist] jugular.

ned is just another "trimmer". he prayed that joe would blow it totally.

ned really isn't an anti-fascist.

ned is going to be another loser.

ct either wants the fascist incumbent or wants an anti-fascist interloper... who knows why he is an anti-fascist and can express it.

ned really has no political philosophy. and that is what this dance revealed.

ned is toast.

the dnc, dlc, and the mossad are smiling. their acolyte will retain his incumbency.

"a nasty negative campaign against Lieberman's person"

typical BS from a liebertroll. Why don't you document the personal attacks made by Lamont (yes we are asking for some evidence of your lies); I've followed this race closely; the attack dog (lieber-wolf) not content to slime anyone against the war but he has unleashed the lieber-pups to do his slime work. Lieberman-Rove tactics.

Lamont has called Lieberman a closet Republican and an apologist for the Bush Administration, which I would consider a personal attack. It reminds me of Howard Dean's penchant, during his failed presidental bid, to label all his opponents as "Bush Lite" no matter how liberal their voting records were.

Lamont has called Lieberman a closet Republican and an apologist for the Bush Administration, which I would consider a personal attack.

That observation is made routinely by Democrats across the state of Connecticut and the nation. Lamont didn't invent this nor does he need to repeat it even once for its veracity to be obvious.

 I find this an incredble excuse for Lieberman's boorish behavior during the debate.

On July 1, three days before Lieberman announced his intention, if he loses his race in the Democratic primary, to run as an independent, we get this precious bit of prescience from rachelrachel:

"He's made it clear that he DOES NOT want to run as an independent. He wants to run as the nominee of the Democratic party, and to date he's leading in every poll, so it looks like he'll do just that.

The time to start collecting signatures wouldn't necessarily be right now or immediately after the primary. If he has a contingency plan in mind (and there's no reason to assume that he does), the time to start collecting signatures might be when it looked like he was heading for a loss in the primaries."

Now anyone can make a mistake about predicting what happens in politics, although one cannot help but be struck by the smug, know-it-all tone, but I really resent this last bit of lying (in the above post). If you come up with a quote in which Lamont calls Lieberman a closet Republican, I will apologize. Otherwise you may want to begin correcting your own inaccuracies.

You're right. Thanks.

I didn't use quote marks, so I was paraphrasing what I had heard and read from Mr. Lamont and his campaign. I did not intend to say that he uttered these exact words.

This is is from the Lamont campaign website:

“It’s clear that Senator Lieberman, by misrepresenting Ned Lamont’s position on the war in Iraq, is trying to deflect attention from the fact that he was carrying George Bush’s water on the floor of the Senate last week,” Swan said.

“Last week, Ned said Joe Lieberman was sounding more and more like George Bush,” said Communications Director Liz Dupont-Diehl. “This makes the case, in Senator Lieberman’s own words.”

"Swan" is of course Mr. Lamont's campaign manager, Tom Swan. I think my words are a reasonable paraphrase. Reminiscent of the Dean 2004 "Republican lite" rhetoric.

As for the petitions, it didn't occur to me that Lieberman might opt to stay in the primary while he was collecting signatures to run as an independent. Frankly, I think he should have chosen one or the other: run in the primary, or drop out and collect signatures to run as an independent.

I still haven't seen any polls showing Lamont ahead of Lieberman, although there haven't been any since the latter made his announcement.

Sadly, I kept waiting for Lamont to point that out forcefully in the debate, but it didn't happen.

Frankly, I don't know why delivering "zingers" is such a desired characteristic.

Has anybody seen Al Gore lately? Doesn't he look and sound Presidential?
Doesn't he make every candidate pale in comparison? Anybody have any ideas why?

I have some: He just looks and sounds like he's done his homework. He has the answers, and delivers them clearly and thoughtfully.

[To the poster who said Lieberman won the debate because you can tell he wants this so badly -- I say, What are you thinking? Yes, he sure looks like he is dying to keep his job, but for his own sake, rather than his constituents, and DEFINITELY not for the Democratic party.]

Gore, in contrast is committed and it shows with every word he says. When asked what disappoints him most about Bush, he responded by saying that Bush totally lacks curiosity, and because of that he makes decisions based on the wrong things. BAM! What a thoughtful, intelligent way to deliver an insult!

I have yet to see an actual candidate comport himself in this way, (I think Dean was closest except for a few remarks, and the "scream," which got tons more real estate in the media than it deserved) but I would love to see someone with the ability and smarts to do it.

Wesley Clark comes to mind as a possibility -- now I'm going off thread, so I will come back. For anyone who wants Lieberman to get all excited and show emotion (negative or positive) to prove how much he wants this, is for me, proof that he isn't qualified -- as if his own record weren't proof enough.
Jan Knaus

Right, and the "talking points" type of criticism, which is the ONLY kind republicans ever manage to get out there, don't get so much as a rise out of him.  Not even an uncomfortable reaction(in fact I've watched him deflect them with aplomb).

There is nothing like simply believing completely in your message, and having the facts to back you up.  If only our future candidate could learn this hugely important lesson!  When Gore gets a question about some researcher somewhere who says he's wrong, he doesn't take it personally; doesn't rise to the bait:  he just says the guy is wrong, and then calmly explains why.  Then he cites sources of his own.

Should that be so hard to do for, say, universal health insurance, which is a given in every other western civilization except ours?  We don't have to reinvent the wheel, we just have to stop our Congress from getting paid off by insurers and drug companies.

Other than Cuban cigars and weapons, what is the only other thing that is illegal to purchase out of our country for use in this country?  Gee -- prescription drugs!  Wonder why none of our guys is exposing this scandal?  BTW, 90% of these drugs are imported here from the same countries that import them to Canada and Mexico.

Our candidates need to educate themselves and to have a conversation with the people they are asking to vote for them.  It really shouldn't be too hard to perfect a canned, and tolerant response to the silly negatives that the republicans dream up.

Flip-flop, cut & run, blame game --> Hire a good second-grade teacher to get some good retorts, and then ignore them.  We don't have to come back with "Lie and Die," but a short and sensible answer might be nice.

If Democrats can't rise to this occasion, then I guess this country deserves its fate.  Sad fact is that whoever gets in next is faced with an unfathomable mess, and will have to put up with "tax and spend" and all the other childish names the republicans love to throw at us.

Someone else posted this, but I think it is great:

"If you want to live like a republican, vote Democrat!   That kind of says it all!

 Jan Knaus

.

It seems odd to me that rachelrachel would describe as a personal attack Lamont calling Lieberman an apologist for Bush or a "closet Republican".

First, Lieberman has been an apologist for Bush. He's suggested that he needs to be supported as Commander in Chief or we risk undermining our efforts in the war. Call me crazy, but that, combined with Lieberman literally mouthing Republican talking points respecting the rationale for the war, would seem to be the behavior of an apologist.

As far as describing Lieberman as a "closet Republican", that's a political attack not a personal one. In truth, Lieberman has done some things that do seem to make him out to be a closet Republican on some issues: his committee vote to allow the Alito nomination to come to the floor, then voting against Alito seems just like so much political posturing to cover up his support for Alito (since, obviously, Alito would be confirmed on the floor). This is especially true given his professed position on women's rights. The war is another issue where he can fairly be described as a (not-quite-so) closet Republican; he's out of touch with the Democratic base on the issue.

There are other examples, but I just think it is important to distinguish between a personal attack (Bush vis-a-vis McCain in S.Carolina in 2000, or Swiftboating Kerry) and a legitimate political attack.

After all, Lamont's support within the Democratic party comes from somewhere. If Lieberman had not lost Dem support, Lamont would be nowhere today.

Link to good chart on the vulnerable House races in yesterday's NYTimes here.