Ned Lamont

Barack Obama has drawn some criticism from left-of-center blogs today for cutting a radio ad in support of Representative John Barrow of Georgia, a conservative Democrat who is facing a primary challenge from a more liberal candidate next month.

"One of the most enthusiastic enablers of the radical and lawless policies of the Bush administration," writes Glenn Greenwald, citing Barrow's positions on Iraq and the FISA debate.

There are two things worth noting about this.

One is that Obama's endorsement of Barrow probably shouldn't be seen as an endorsement of Barrow's politics.  read more »

Happy Blog Day! 

irst, Ned Lamont took the occasion in an impassioned e-mail this morning to call for grassroots change. Then John McCain made news in a blog-hosted interview.

Now, Bill Clinton.

His foundation just fired out an e-mail with the subject, "Read My First Blog" and the "From" field announcing the author:  
"President Bill Clinton."  His post, from South Africa, is upbeat in tone, yet full of warnings: "Africa stands to suffer the most from global climate change."

He makes reference Hillary only once and promises to be "reading your responses as soon as I have a chance."

It all prompts the question: Might the next president keep a blog, complete with candid updates from the Situation Room, a comments section that he or she actually monitors regularly, a frequently updated Wiki-style "State of the Union" and a "digg it" button? You never know.

The full entry is after the jump.

 read more »

First off, let's be clear about something: It's easy to be against the war now; everyone is against it. Three and four years into Vietnam, more than half the country was for it—probably 60 percent. Right now no one with any sense in America thinks this war was a smart idea. Figuring out how to get out has been a moral and pragmatic nightmare.

The point Ken Brociner makes below is true: pro-Israel libs don't want any part of the left's anti-Israel rhetoric. He proves my point. The traditional left is divided. On the one side are Dem. liberals who say Israel is not the issue. On the other are lefties like myself who says, It's pointless to talk about this war unless you talk about the role of the Israeli Occupation. We each represent real blocs. And we're at loggerheads. You couldn't build a movement (when it mattered most in '02-03) with such profound disagreement between essential constituencies over a central issue

Two of my Jewish heroes during Vietnam were Norman Mailer for his book Why Are We In Vietnam, and David Halberstam for his book The Best and the Brightest. Neither a radical (ala Mark Rudd, in my last post). But both of them were concerned with a very important question; How did we get into this mess? Who were the idiots who thought this was a good idea? It wasn't hard for liberal Jews to enter into this analysis, because they were critiquing Establishment gentiles.

The problem this time around is that the same sort of analysis leaves many Jews deeply conflicted. Lefty progressives like myself are saying, It's the occupation, stupid, and Clintonite liberal Jews (Moveon.org) are saying, That has nothing to do with it! One commenter points at Dan Fleshler's piece in which Fleshler (a noble guy who has put in years working for the likes of Americans for Peace Now while I was sitting on my hands) describes the effort to pin the blame on this war on Jewish neocons as a conspiracy theory. He would seem to regard the neocons as a bunch of adjutants who were merely carrying out the wishes of a tunnel-vision President and evil vice-president. I disagree: I think high-placed advisers have real power. JFK mentioned Peace Corps in campaign speeches, sure, but it took a dozen committed idealists and intellectuals to get the executive order on his desk in 1961 and then build Peace Corps—guys who wear laurels to this day for their work. A dozen committed, brilliant (and twisted) intellectuals in high positions built the Iraq war. Many of them Jewish Likudniks. Ideas have influence.

I don't think that you can understand this war, and where America went wrong, without understanding the roles of: Israel's policy in the Occupied Territories, U.S. support for that policy, the strength of the Israel lobby, and the historic rise of the neoconservatives to real advisory power over 30 years. We were attacked on 9/11 in part because of our support for a (hateful) Occupation, and we invaded Iraq partly because of the neocons' foolish idea that you can remake Arab dictatorships as democracies—and forget about Israel's apartheid-style Occupation of Palestinian territories. These claims captured the Clintonite liberals: Ken Pollack stated emphatically that the "troubles" in Israel/Palestine had nothing to do with the strategic wisdom of going into Iraq; the issues were not linked. His advice re Iraq turns out to be brutally misguided, and we have to consider that he couldn't even utter the word "occupation" in his book. Just "troubles" in Israel/Palestine. The fact that Brookings' Saban Center where he works is underwritten by an Israeli is not a conspiracy theory; it is a fact of American public life. Pro-Israel money has transformed the culture of the thinktanks. Walt and Mearsheimer have written about this, Anatol Lieven, formerly of Carnegie, has spoken about it. Blankfort says that the Democratic party gets 60 percent of its money from Jews (which is consistent with the Washington Post's estimate of over half), which makes Jewish money a Matterhorn in the American political landscape. Last summer when Ned Lamont beat Lieberman, a lot of those big Jewish givers told the JTA or the Forward that they would stick with Lieberman no matter what, because of Israel. Didn't trust leftish-lib Lamont.

Jewish liberals tend to find this type of analysis upsetting and scary. They don't want to go there. Myself, I am motivated by the moral horror of Iraq: foolish ideas have turned it into a charnel house in which good people are terrified day and night and anyone who can has left. Like Lieven and Mearsheimer, I didn't go near this stuff till 9/11 happened. But back then Clintonite liberals were running around saying, "Our Israel policy has nothing to do with the attacks." This was foolish and defensive. Now that I've gone and seen what the Occupation is doing to Arabs—thanks to great Israelis like Yehuda Shaul and Elik Alhanan—I understand the rage it has generated across the Arab world. And as an American I say: we Americans have to address our part in that. I do so as a lefty Jew, and there are plenty of lefty Jews in the discussion. We're making an alliance with Protestant liberals, like the Presbyterian church, like Jimmy Carter. Do we think that if the Occupation ended tomorrow, the problems in the Middle East would end? Hell no. But ending the Occupation is an essential step in guiding the Islamic world toward (inevitable) reformation.

My liberal critics are right when they say I've been too blanket. I ought to acknowledge that moveon.org, the Reform rabbis and others are doing important work when they maintain pressure on Bush and other war-supporters, to the point where they at last come out of their bunker and admit what a mistake they made. Such an admission might help bring about a resolution to Iraq's horrors. But let's unpack the ideology that generated Iraq. By refusing to include the Occupation in thier analysis, liberal Jews are reducing their understanding to the crude idea that It's the evil oil companies and cowboy George, and deluding themselves about how the world works.

The Associated Press has declared Joe Lieberman the winner in Connecticut, avenging his loss to Ned Lamont in this summer's Democratic primary.

Lamont lost the momentum in this race literally days after his stunning primary triumph-- when he took off for a vacation in Maine. His campaign manager's ugly verbal attack on the city of Waterbury -- a socially conervative Lieberman stronghold in the primary whose voters, late in turning against the war, could have been Lamont converts in the fall-- didn't help either.

-- Steve Kornacki

With word circulating that an exit poll has Ned Lamont leading Joe Lieberman, Dan Gerstein, Lieberman's campaign press secretary, says he's not surprised. "We expect this will be a two or three point race," he said shorty after 7:00. "It's going to be close." There is anecdotal evidence, Gerstein said, of higher-than-expected turnout -- "but not necessarily in places where Lamont is supposed to be strong and we're supposed to be weak."

For whatever that's worth.

-- Steve Kornacki

In what looks like a conscious echo of Ned Lamont's attention-grabbing literature in Connecticut, here's part of a campaign flyer being handed out by one of the opponents of Transport Workers Union president Roger Toussaint opponents showing him hugging MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow.  read more »

For more information on the flyer, or the union's election later this year, check out Chuck Bennett.

-- Azi Paybarah

Sincerest apologies for the absence of posts over the last couple of hours. We've been having some tech issues that are, for the moment, resolved.

And now, as we were saying...

If there was any doubt how Ned Lamont might try to revitalize his campaign, this ad should answer your question.

Here's what it says: A vote for Joe Lieberman means more war.

Back to basics.

-- Azi Paybarah

UPDATE: John DeSio, whose brother is in the military right now, has some strong opinions about the ad.

Quinnipiac throws a little bit of a wet blanket (a slightly dampened blanket?) on hopes of a suspenseful election tomorrow, releasing polls on three key races that show:

Alan Hevesi leading Chris Callaghan by 12 points; Bob Menendez leading Tom Kean, Jr. by 5; and Joe Lieberman leading Ned Lamont by 12.

-- Azi Paybarah

Less than a week from the elections, it’s getting increasingly easy to envision what for the Repub  read more »

Less than a week from the elections, it’s getting increasingly easy to envision what for the R  read more »

Ned Lamont, Connecticut’s Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, crossed the rainy street alone.  read more »

Ned Lamont, Connecticut’s Democratic nominee for the U.S.  read more »

Jason Horowitz talks to Ned Lamont and his supporters about a campaign that hasn't gone exactly as they had hoped.

Choire Sicha and John Koblin report on Obamamania and how it seems a lot more real to Barack Obama's people than it does to Hillary Clinton's.

Azi Paybarah writes about Alan Hevesi's turmoil and the late campaign push he's getting from his remaining institutional supporters.

Joe Conason says that conservatives are trying to claim victory ahead of expected GOP losses, and that one very important major media outlet is buying it.

Jonathan Miller reports on the relationships between Robert Menendez and some hard-line anti-Castro activists.

Steve Kornacki explains why Joe Lieberman is going to be a major power broker in the Senate after Election Day.

And Richard Brookhiser doesn't think the Democrats, if elected, will be able to do any better in Iraq.

-- Josh Benson

Today's Quinnipiac poll =out of Connecticut has Joe Lieberman leading Ned Lamont 49-37% among likely voters, with the Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger at 8%.

In the Oct. 20th Q poll, Lieberman led Lamont 52-35%.

Lieberman leads Lamont among likely Republican voters (73-6), Democratic voters (56-37) and among independent voters (51-36).

Q pollster Douglas Schwartz said Lamont's hopes of victory are, unfortunately, tied to Schlesinger.

"For Ned Lamont to catch Sen. Joseph Lieberman, he needs Alan Schlesinger to break out of single digits and take away Republican votes from Lieberman."

What are the odds of that?

-- Azi Paybarah

There's been no shortage of told-you-so criticism in recent days for Ned Lamont's Senate campaign, which, conventional wisdom now has it, has failed to define the candidate since his primary victory as anything other than a liberal insurgent backed by the blogosphere.

Commentators have seemed particularly put off by Lamont's television advertising. He never looked straight into the camera, they say, or told the general electorate who he was and what he was going to do.

Lamont himself doesn't entirely disagree. He admitted to me over the weekend that it might have benefited him to "get out there more," with messages that said, "This is Ned Lamont, this is who he is, this is what's it's about."

Well, the Lamont campaign just released another ad today, and it doesn't exactly do much in the way of defining Lamont. It does, however, suggest that Joe Lieberman is completely insane, portraying him crashing a black sedan, repeatedly, into a brick wall.

-- Jason Horowitz

As Ned Lamont's homepage makes a point of stressing, "It's all about the GOTV now." They're talking, ostensibly, about their own efforts, which are now focused on gathering as many names as possible to contact for help on Election Day.

But judging by conversations I've had with people within the Lamont camp, it's the Joe Lieberman GOTV effort that's on their minds. Specifically, they're obsessed -- perhaps with good cause -- with the matter of Lieberman's nearly $400,000 in unaccounted for petty cash expenses. Lamont's supporters aren't going to let the matter drop, and staffers, as well as unaffiliated Democratic consultants I've been speaking with, seem to find it genuinely extraordinary.

The Lamont campaign has a complaint into the FEC. It's safe to say they're hoping something big comes out of it. --Jason Horowitz

Out of debates and down in the polls, Ned Lamont is now accusing Joe Lieberman not only of enabling Bush on the war in Iraq but of creating a nearly $400,000 "slush fund" of petty cash expenditures. Lamont's campaign is filing a formal complaint with the FEC. (Complaint after the jump.)

"Only an 18 year career politician could dump almost $400,000 in cash into an election and try to call it petty cash," said Lamont's campaign manager, Tom Swan, in a statement.  read more »

Lamont has used a mere $500 of petty cash, according to the the campaign, although the candidate has pumped millions of his own money into the campaign. I'm waiting to hear from Lieberman's campaign, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that their response will include the word "desperation."

--Jason Horowitz

Ned Lamont's campaign started off saying Joe Lieberman was too close to George Bush. Now they're trying to make the case that he really has much more in common with Richard Nixon.

In a new video, culled from last night's debate and stock footage, they have the Connecticut Senator morphing into Nixon and echoing his words on war.

"Lieberman is engaging in Nixonian deception when he says in 2006 that he wants to end the Iraq War, as he has opposed every single effort to end the war," says the Lamont Campaign.

The strategy here is debatable. Lamont won the Democratic primary, and now, presumably, has to figure out a way to win over some of the independents and Republicans who've been telling pollsters that they plan to vote for Lieberman.

Maybe Lamont's advisors figured it would be more resonant with those voters to cast Lieberman as a dishonest dissembler (by using Nixon imagery) than an out-of-touch conservative (by using Bush). More likely, they're just casting around, at this point, for a message that works.

--Jason Horowitz

The origins of Ned Lamont's opposition to the War in Iraq can be found in his Calvinist roots and family genes.

That's the case Jim Sleeper tries to make here and here.

He cites "Calvinist currents of public obligation and individual conscience" in Lamont country and finds a correlation in his opposition to the war in Iraq with his uncle Thomas W. Lamont II's support of American involvement in WWII. As a 17-year-old Exeter student, "Tommy" Lamont spoke out against European Fascism and argued that Americans had a responsibility to stamp it out. He saw WWII as a "Good Fight" (and he died fighting it.) According to Sleeper, the War in Iraq is no such thing.

"Had Tommy survived, he'd be 82 years old now, and had he opposed the Iraq war in any highly public way, conservative political operatives and their writerly fellow travelers and apologists would be sliming him as shamelessly as they did such veterans as John Kerry, Max Cleland, John Murtha, and even John McCain."

As for Tommy's nephew Ned:

"He has told anyone who'll listen that he became Lieberman's challenger because he couldn't convince anyone else to make the race. But his courage in doing that reminds me of the uncle he never knew: Both have risen to a civic-republican standard which too many others have forsaken."

Joe Lieberman, one would imagine, would argue that his support for the war would make him Thomas Lamont's true intellectual descendant. But there it is.

-- Jason Horowitz

First, Ned Lamont is falling behind Joe Lieberman in fund-raising. Lamont has $330,000 on hand, compared to Lieberman's $4.7 million.

And now, Arianna Huffington is writing a theoretical obituary for him, blaming the consultants Lamont brought on board for dulling down a once-exciting campaign.

"The addition to the Lamont campaign after the primary of Democratic insiders Howard Wolfson, Doug Schoen, and Stephanie Cutter has been part of the problem. According to their poll-driven culture, one must move to the center and appeal to those in the middle. And, as a result, once-promising politicians are insidiously encouraged to lose their moral bearing -- and the authenticity that made them so compelling in the first place."

I'm not sure Arianna Huffington defines "compelling" in the same way as the average Connecticut general election voter. But still, it's surely not good news for such a prominent Lamont sympathizer to be engaging in recrminations -- even hypothetical ones -- three weeks before the election.

-- Azi Paybarah

The star of Ned Lamont's new television ad is none other than Joe Lieberman.

It is Lieberman's voice, back in 1988 when he debated incumbent Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr., that narrates the ad. "After 18 years, it's time for somebody new," he says."In this campaign I promise you I will not miss more than 300 votes."

On the screen it says "The Fact: Joe Lieberman has skipped more than 418 votes."

The Lamont campaign says that it is putting the finishing touches on the ad but it should be up at around 3pm.

According to the Lamont campaign, Lieberman skipped half of all votes on the Iraq War, missed votes on Medicare to attend fundraisers in California, and failed to vote once to fund the inaugural budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

We're waiting to hear back from the Lieberman campaign for a response.

--Jason Horowitz

Tom Reynolds cancels an appearance at a Pennsylvania fundraiser.

Alan Hevesi's spokesman can't say why his candidate isn't debating Chris Callaghan. "If Mr. Hevesi needs a ride, we'd be happy to pick him up so he won't have to use a state worker to chauffeur him to the debate," Callaghan said.

Hillary Clinton,who opposes same-sex marriage, quietly supports a bill to give insurance benefits to same-sex couples.

Mentioning the wiretapping scandal in Jeanine Pirro's own ad is "a way to become better known, and to play the victim, in hopes of drawing sympathy," says Patrick Healy. But the blockbuster claim that there was no wiretapping is "not yet supported" by the US attorney's office.

The Wall Street Journal says John Faso did a public service by getting Eliot Spitzer to make a no-new-taxes pledge.

Ned Lamont uses an old Joe Lieberman ad to make his case in a new ad airing today.

"After 18 years, it's time for somebody new," Lieberman says in the Lamont ad. "It's time for a change."

-- Azi Paybarah

Here's the open letter the Rev. Al Sharpton just wrote to Joe Lieberman, who pointed to Sharpton's endorsement of Ned Lamont as evidence that Lamont was not a strong supporter of Israel.

"For you now to totally flip the script to hopefully incite some race based hysteria in a desperate attempt to save your political career is beneath the dignity of the man I thought I got to know in 2004."

And on Lieberman's record as a young activist registering blacks to vote in the South:

"Little did I know that you would adapt the political strategies of those southern bigots you marched against. Is it just to try and win an election, Joe? You and I often talked about the bible. I remind you then of the biblical verse, "What profits a man to gain the world, and loose his own soul?"

The full letter is after the jump.  read more »

-- Azi Paybarah

A number of friends passed on the article in yesterday's Times where Joe Lieberman said that Ned Lamont was not committed to Israel, during a trip by the Senator to New York to raise money in Jewish circles. The challenger of course denied it.

This is good news: the issue is getting into the Times, and on front pages elsewhere.

The credit all goes to Walt and Mearsheimer. A few weeks back, the New Republic sniggered at the authors of the LRB paper on the Israel lobby, making it out to be a flash in the pan. Oh they got their little moment in the leftwing sun, how quickly they evaporated, was Marty Peretz's tone. Well he's wrong. This was a real bombshell that is reverberating. As I first reported last Sunday, and then as Gabriel Sanders reported in this week's Forward, FSG has given the authors a book contract (at last); and meanwhile the front page of the influential New York Sun has run an attack on Tony Judt, who had lately argued on behalf of Walt and Mearsheimer's views. These ideas are not going away.

I sense that we're approaching a real political moment; and good for Lieberman for putting the issue on the agenda. Let's have it out. Before long, who knows, maybe Chris Matthews will describe the settlements in the West Bank as what they are, religious apartheid, and Senator Hagel, or Senator Lamont, will ask, What effect these violations of the Geneva Conventions that we support are having on Arab hearts and minds... Am I dreamin'?

What constitutes dirty money in Connecticut?

Here's the Ned Lamont campaign's explanation of the $500,000 contribution that Lamont just made to his own cause:

"I think it says more about Senator Lieberman's expenditures than it does about his (Lamont's) campaign," said Liz Dupont-Diehl, Lamont's spokeswoman. "Lieberman has outspent us two-to-one on tv ads and Ned's just not going to let that happen."

The reason for the gap in spending, she said, is Lamont's aversion to certain types of cash: He refuses to accept campaign contributions from any special interest lobbies, and limits his donor lists to "political leadership PACs" and grassroots-y groups like MoveOn.org.

Lieberman, on the other hand, "has the support of many Democrats and most of the Republicans, not to mention the fundraising help and advice of Karl Rove."

(Last month, Mel Sembler, a former Republican National Committee finance chairman, organized a fund-raiser for Lieberman that raised a couple of hundred thousand dollars.)

Dan Gerstein, Lieberman's spokesman, writes in with a very different take:

"Ned also crows about not taking PAC money, and then turns around and gladly accepts leadership PAC money from the likes of John Kerry. And where does that leadership PAC money come from? The same lobbyists and corporate interests that Ned is disingenuously attacking. That's Ned at his typical, hy-pac-critical worst. And just this week we learned that Ned is plugging a fundraiser he is doing with Ted Kennedy that is openly soliciting -- you guessed it -- PAC money."

--Jason Horowitz

Today's Quinnipiac poll from Connecticut shows Joe Lieberman sitting on a comfortable 10-point lead over Ned Lamont heading into the last few weeks of the campaign.

Among likely general election voters, Lieberman has a "51 - 24 percent favorability rating, with 22 percent mixed."

Here's the catchy prescription from poll director Douglas Schwartz for Lamont: "He's going to have to do something different in the next six weeks or Sen. Joseph Lieberman stays in for another six years."

-- Josh Benson

Ned Lamont is finding out that sometimes it pays to be the establishment candidate. In response to more attacks from Joe Lieberman's campaign depicting him as a "waffler" on Iraq, John Kerry weighed in to defend Lamont and take a shot at Lieberman.

"No matter how much Senator Lieberman pretends otherwise, as we were debating a Senate resolution to change course on Iraq, our intelligence agencies were telling this Administration that America is less safe and more endangered by terrorists because of the failed stay-the-course policies in Iraq. There's just no excuse for continuing the old line that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror when in fact we know Iraq is a recruiting poster for terrorists while the real war on terror in Afghanistan spirals downwards," Kerry said in the statement. (Full text after the jump.)

Lieberman's campaign has been staying on the offensive over Ned Lamont's Iraq proposals in hopes of neutralizing the issue that the Connecticut millionaire rode to victory in last month's primary. Earlier, the Lieberman campaign ridiculed Lamont, saying he had taken "four positions in one day on the one issue of his one-issue campaign."  read more »

According to the Lieberman campaign, Lamont said that he still backed the Kerry-Feingold plan which calls for a comprehensive exit from Iraq nine-months from now, but also said he supported a timeline of 12 months, 18 months, or the time period that the military's generals suggest. This sort of attack wouldn't hurt Lamont, of course, if this were the primary and he were only appealing to voters who wanted out of Iraq. But Lamont also needs to chase Independent voters in the general, and Lieberman is betting that they just might be uncomfortable enough with him simply to "go with who you know."

--Jason Horowitz

Joseph Lieberman's campaign is having some fun with the fact that Ned Lamont accepted $100 from a socialist group, and then decided to return it because they don't accept all PAC money.

"What are they trying to do, avoid losing the support of the Karl Marx Fan Club of America?...On several occasions, Team Lamont have denounced PACs and the corrupting influence of the lobbyists who are often behind them, which is why he says he won't take their contributions. But he makes an exception to his principled rule for PACs run by politicians...So under Ned's dubious rules, it's unethical to take lobbyist's support, unless it's funneled through John Kerry.

Team Lamont, meanwhile, just released this ad featuring people wearing their coats inside out, a symbol of how Lieberman has become a turncoat to the Democratic Party by running as an independent.

-- Azi Paybarah

A reader forwards her thoughts on the MoveOn.org survey about whether the group which put Ned Lamont on the map should get behind Hillary Clinton's anti-war challenger, Jonathan Tasini.

First problem is, the Clinton-Tasini question was No. 4 in a mailing with the subject line, "Help Set MoveOn's Course." Second problem is that it went to a select number of New York members, not the full membership.

The survey is now closed and "The results are confidential and are only used for planning purposes."  read more »

-- Azi Paybarah

A little footnote about that meeting tomorrow between Hillary Clinton and Ned Lamont:

It won't be in public.

When asked whether they'll be making any type of joint appearance on Friday, Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson had the following to say: "No."

-- Azi Paybarah

Yesterday, after the Joe Lieberman campaign mounted accusation of a partisan purge by Ned Lamont supporters, Lamont's campaign manager Tom Swan said he suspected that the person behind the effort to strip Lieberman of his registration as a Democrat was a peace activist named Henry Lowendorf.

This morning, Lowendorf confirmed in a phone interview that he is indeed leading the charge to kick Lieberman out of the party, and added that although he has volunteered for Lamont in the past "we did not seek their permission or tell them," he said. "There is a report in the newspaper that the Lamont campaign opposes what we are doing," he said. "Well that's up to them."

Lowendorf's beef with Lieberman is that he is "splitting the Democratic party. He is attacking and has attacked people who support Lamont."

Lowendorf argues that Lieberman is in clear violation of section 9-61 of the Connecticut electoral statutes: "Prima facie evidence supporting discretionary erasure or exclusion."  read more »

(The statute in question is after the jump. Decide for yourselves)

--Jason Horowitz

Joe Lieberman's website is "pretty much down -- minus (ironically) a YouTube video..."

Andrew Cuomo pretty much up. Up in the polls and uptown in Harlem, where he got a group endorsement from politicians there, including Charlie Rangel.

Ned Lamont could be up a bit if he gets an endorsement tomorrow from the United Auto Workers. Greg Sargent says that "could give Lamont an organizational and political boost at a time when Lieberman is leading in polls..."

Rudy Giuliani, who is high in the polls, raised $2 million. He also campaigned upstate for Rep. John Sweeney, or as Liz Benjamin calls him, "Congressman Kick Ass."

And going up at a press conference tomorrow are sexy vodka ads that were banned by MTA buses. They're now going up on taxis.  read more »

-- Azi Paybarah

The Ned Lamont campaign says that the accusations from the Joe Lieberman camp -- charging Lamont supporters with trying to strip the Senator of his Democratic registration -- sound a lot like the never-proven claims during primary night that Lamont supporters were responsible for the collapse of their overburdened campaign website.

"The Lieberman campaign should get some grip on reality before they start making baseless charges against our campaign," said Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan. "We had nothing to do with this. We don't condone it or encourage it. We saw this with the hacking accusations -- they continue to make baseless charges."

Swan added that the only name he had heard in relation to the effort to strip Lieberman of his Democratic registration was Henry Lowendorf, a member of the New Haven Peace Council who he says is unaffiliated with the campaign.

We asked Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein if he knows anything more than that. We are waiting for his reply.

--Jason Horowitz UPDATE: Dan Gerstein sends along Exhibit A about the Lamont supporters they're accusing of trying to kick Lieberman out of the party, with the following explanatory note:

Tom Swan asked for evidence that Lamont supporters were behind today's effort to purge Joe Lieberman from the New Haven Democratic Party rolls. Here is one cite we found from an online radio interview with Henry Lowendorf of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, which we are told was responsible for the complaint to the New Haven registrar. We will send others as we find them.

FURTHER UPDATE: More from Gerstein:

According to a report from the New Haven Independent:

Other activists signing Lowendorf's letter to Ferrucci included veteran activists Paul Hodel and Tom Holahan, a former Democratic alderman.

According to this posting on myleftnutmeg.com, Hodel was campaigning on behalf of Lamont in New Haven in July.

Joe Lieberman's campaign could hardly have scripted this better:

They now say that peace activists sympathetic to Ned Lamont are trying to revoke the senator's registration as a Democrat in his hometown of New Haven. The argument is that he stopped being a Democrat when he started running as an Independent petitioning candidate.

"This gives the lie to the idea that this is not an effort to purge different ideas from the party," said Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein, who referred to the activists as Lamont surrogates.

Lamont, obviously, can't be responsible for the actions of all of his supporters. But talk about off-message...

We're still waiting for a comment from his campaign.

-- Jason Horowitz

UPDATE: The Lieberman campaign has just released a statement on this (after the jump), while Lamontblog has a rebuttal, aimed primarily at Gerstein.  read more »

Josh Isay may be new to the Lieberman campaign, but not to Lieberman himself.

"I have actually known the Senator's family for almost my entire life," said Isay. "I grew up in New Haven."

Hometown loyalties aside, Isay said he is a great admirer of the Senator, and expressed confidence Lieberman will take on and win against Democrats, Republicans and anyone else going into November's showdown with Ned Lamont.

"I think he is going to do very well with Democrats and unaffiliated voters and Republicans who want to end partisan bickering and who want progress," Isay told me.

Lamont's campaign has already jumped on the Lieberman's campaign hiring of Isay -- who recently worked on the reelection campaign of Mike Bloomberg -- and a Republican pollster as another opportunity to question the senator's Democratic credentials.

"It makes you wonder who the real Joe Lieberman is," Mr. Lamont's spokeswoman, Liz Dupont-Diehl just told us. "He has been Republican, Republican, Republican for some time. Now we are seeing it manifest itself."

But Isay, who helped reelect Republican Mayor Bloomberg, said he was a true-blue Democrat.  read more »

"I'm a Democratic political consultant who represents both elected officials and progressive causes, I believe Joe Lieberman has been a great Senator and is the best choice in this race. And I believe that this is totally consistent with my clients and my beliefs."

--Jason Horowitz

It's no coincidence that a purposeful silence has replaced the well-publicized calls from Republicans last month for no-hope GOP Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger to make way for someone more credible.

The state and national party, it seems, have concluded that they can't succeed in Connecticut this year under any circumstance, and would rather see Joe Lieberman win -- which polls show he's likely to do, absent a credible Republican candidate -- than risk handing the election to Democrat Ned Lamont.

This morning, a source at the National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed in a phone interview that the party will not help Schlesinger or any other potential Republican candidate in Connecticut, and it now favors a Lieberman victory in November.

"We did a poll and there is no way any Republican we put out there can win, so we are just going to leave that one alone," said the NRSC source.

Instead, the NRSC is pulling for Lieberman over Ned Lamont, who rode an anti-war message to a victory in the Aug 8 primary.

"Most Republicans would agree that he'd clearly be a better choice than Lamont," said the source.

--Jason Horowitz UPDATE: An NRSC spokesman just called to make clear the distinction between actively and openly supporting Lieberman, which they're not doing, and merely opting not to support a Republican in Connecticut.

"The NRSC is not supporting Lieberman," said Brian Nick, a spokesman for the NRSC. "He is a Democrat who votes 90 percent of the time with the Democrats. The race isn't competitive at this point -- our resources will be used elsewhere."

Tom Kean, the 9/11 commission member who said he didn't ask Rudy Giuliani tough enough questions, will be on The Daily Show tonight.

Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, L.I. Republican Peter King, has some kind words for Hillary Clinton.

Mayor Bloomberg and Christine Quinn wine and dine the DNC in hopes of landing another national convention for the Big Apple.

Staten Island Democratic Leader, John Lavelle, is supporting Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman.

One person who didn't vote for Lamont was his own daughter.

And Karol Sheinin of Alarming News gets dissed by Andrew Sullivan, and likes it.

-- Azi Paybarah

While Ned Lamont has Hillary, Chuck and the entire Democratic establishment in his corner, Joe Lieberman has been scrambling to attract defectors. Yesterday he got James A. Amann, the speaker of the Connecticut House, and today his campaign is touting a couple more, including New York's own Peter Vallone Sr.

"I am going to raise some for money for him," Vallone just told us. "He supported me for Governor in '98. I like his courage and I think he was a damn good senator. I agree with him on Iraq. Better to fight them over there than over here."

Lieberman will also get Bernie McLoughlin, Democratic Town Chairman of North Haven (which Lamont carried) who stepped down yesterday in a show of solidarity with the senator.

McLoughlin said that since he could not in good conscience support the Democratic nominee, it would be inappropriate to stay on as his town's Democratic chair.

"The Democratic apparatus is supposed to support the nominee of the party. Once that is concluded, you have an obligation as a leader of that party to support the nominee or get out," said McLoughlin, who chose to get out.  read more »

So he's out.

--Jason Horowitz

One of the best things going for the independent candidacy of Joe Lieberman right now is the weakness of his prospective GOP opponent Alan Schlesinger.

As Horowitz reported before the weekend, a potentially more credible - and wealthier -- Republican is doing his best to make it known that he will jump into the race if Schlesinger can be persuaded to drop out.

Today, that wealthy Republican, Jack Orchetti, told Greg Sargent that he'd be willing to spend at least $1.5 million of his own money on a three-way race against Lieberman and Ned Lamont, but he essentially set a two week time limit for getting into the contest.

"If Schlesinger doesn't step down within two weeks," he said, "it'll be too late."

Until now, Schlesinger has shown no indication of heeding calls from within his party to drop out. But I have a feeling the Lamont people are keeping their fingers crossed.

-- Josh Benson

On the eve of the worst election day of his 18-year Senate career, Joe Lieberman’s campaign bus sl  read more »

WASHINGTON—For Democrats in this swampy, overheated capital—where the Starbucks are closed by 8  read more »

On the eve of the worst election day of his 18-year Senate career, Joe Lieberman’s campaign bu  read more »

WASHINGTON—For Democrats in this swampy, overheated capital—where the Starbucks are clos  read more »

Observer super-intern Samuel Jacobs has this dispatch from Jonathan Tasini's press conference at City Hall earlier today:

Backed by two-dozen supporters holding blue Jonathan Tasini signs--"Vote for what you believe in"--Jonathan Tasini chastised New York reporters at his 12:30 press conference.

"The press has not covered this race properly," he said, with black cowboy boots firmly planted on the first step of City Hall. "We're polling at the exact same number that Ned Lamont was polling at, trailing by 55 points."

In his prepared remarks, Tasini attempted once again to link the fortunes of New York's junior senator with Joe Lieberman's, calling the two "ideological soulmates" when it comes to Iraq, taxes, NAFTA, and coziness with Washington lobbyists.

And quoting Ross Perot, Tasini called Senator Clinton's recent denunciation of Donald Rumsfeld on the Senate floor "gorilla dust."

Some of the most combative comments came, several Tasini supporters later, from liberal columnist Barbara Ehrenreich.

"It's amusing that some commentators since Ned Lamont's victory, that some are saying that the Democratic Party is being taking over by crazies," she said.

"We are the mainstream that opposes the war. I feel very strongly that Jonathan should get the media's attention. Any exclusion is an example of class prejudice."

At Charlie Rangel's 76th birthday bash at Tavern on the Green last night, Al Sharpton was -- where else? -- right behind the podium as Hillary Clinton and other political luminaries addressed the crowd.

It was a familiar sight. On Tuesday, as you may remember, Sharpton made a cameo in just about every newspaper in the country after he occupied place of honor on the podium behind Ned Lamont during his primary night vistory speech. There had been some talk, including on this blog, about whether such a prominent association with Sharpton -- whatever the merits of it -- is really the best thing tactically for a liberal candidate faced with winning over independent and Republican voters in a general election.

Last night, Sharpton told us in no uncertain terms that he disagrees with the premise.

"Nobody has said that -- you all have come up with that crap," he said. "Before Ned Lamont called me Joe Lieberman called me. I will help Lamont to the degree I can."

And anyway, he added, "New York's biased."  read more »

-- Jason Horowitz

The Times reports Hillary Clinton contributes $5,000 and offers to campaign with Ned Lamont.

The Daily News reports that at last night's debate between John Spencer and KT McFarland "There was only one clear winner and she wasn't in the room."

The Albany Times Union reports the AFL-CIO has been urged not to endorse Andrew Cuomo for attorney general.

—Nicole Brydson