It was an amazing debate.  Joe seemed off-balance the whole time and without a coherent message.

Favorite quote was when Lamont refered to the "Bush, Cheney, Lieberman Energy Bill"

You can donate to Lamont, the only real Democrat in this race HERE

... and I thought Lamont won handily. Lieberman sounded a bit desperate, like he was annoyed that he had to be there.

I agree Ned was great!
Very calm and cool.

I support Joe Lieberman, if only because I want to get a Democratic Majority in the Senate.  No, I don't support all that Joe stands for.  However, I think that the Democrats need to accept into our party those who may not agree with us on every issue.  Remember, polls show the Joe wins even as an Independent.  I'd rather him have a (D) after his name that an (I).  My opinion is that Joe is going to be in the Senate next year anyways.  Might as well have him contributing to a Democratic majority.

Even if Joe wins as an (I) he will caucus with us and vote for Harry Reed, so no loss there.

The reason I oppose Joe has nothing to do with the war, it has to do with Party loyalty.  In 2000 Lieberman proved he was a disloyal Democrat clinging to power when he decided to run for Senate at the same time that he was running for VP.

Here's the potential problem with that.  Gore/Lieberman win the White House and Lieberman wins his CT Senate seat.  The Senate seat which is now vacated, gets to be filled by the Governor John Rowland (R)!  Note that at this point the Senate was evenly divided and Rowland appointing a Republican Senator would have given the Republicans control of the Senate.  Or Lieberman could have committed himself to his VP run, and left the safe D seat to a another Democrat ensuring Democratic control of the Senate.

He's worse than a carpet bagger.

Donate here to Ned Lamont

was quite defensive and trying desperately to convince voters that he needed six more years to accomplish what he couldn't in eighteen years. My fourteen year old Democratic nephew imitated Lieberman with his constant "Who is Ned Lamont?".  In a way, Lieberman did Lamont a favor by the frequent mention of Lamont's name. Not a very smart move for an "experienced" politician.  Btw: the nephew thinks that Ned won the debate.  I have to agree with the nephew.

He can complete his task of dragging the US into Iran. America can't afford him, whatever his colors.

I've just had the opportunity to read the transcript from the Lamont-Lieberman debate.  I will say that Lieberman's point about seniority is valid.  Connecticut voters will pay a price having a less senior senator in Congress--especially if Bush III wins election in 2008.  If Lieberman was not in congress CT probably would have lost their naval base.

At the same time Lamont made a strong case for why the change is worth taking that risk.  Lieberman's support of the Bush-Cheney energy bill; his unapologetic stance on the Iraq war; and other issues are serious problems.  Additionally, Lieberman's declaration that he will run as an independent if he loses the Democratic primary I find absolutely unacceptable.  There's no justification for Lieberman's two-track electoral approach.  His independent campaign will hurt the Democratic party's chances to retain the Democratic seat in 2006.  The move suggests that Lieberman has an overly inflated sense of his self-worth--at the core his decision is not in keeping with the spirit of the Democratic process.

I also found it interesting that Lieberman is employing the same genus of attacks against Lamont that Team Allen is using against Webb in Virginia, and that Team Bush used against Kerry in 2004 (e.g. flip-flopper, don't know where he stands, etc, etc--plus similar to Allen, Lieberman is attempting to advance the claim that Lamont is a "one-issue" candidate).  Will this approach work with voters, or will they correctly recognize the attack as a stale, paint-by-the-numbers type of politicking? 

If I lived in Connecticut I would vote for Lamont.  I don't agree with him on all the issues, but I think he deserves a chance. 

He also used the Reaganesque "there you go again" whenever Lamont made a point, to make him seem like a crazy liberal.