Damned shame about Ned Lamont. I actually gave him a small donation. [Me too -- Ed] THAT was probably the kiss of death for him: my support almost always guarantees a losing campaign. But I still do not understand what is wrong with Democrats when it comes to campaign basics. He fought like hell to win the primary, then gave a terrible acceptance speech -- something that could probably be overcome -- but THEN went to Disneyland for a couple of weeks, while Lieberman threw himself into campaigning (AND running ads like crazy to define the rest of the campaign). Worse, Lamont then LISTENED to the criticisms of Lieberman and tried to "broaden" his image from the Iraq War to things like education.

I mean, criminy, where does this stupidity come from? You NEVER go silent in a campaign. You've got to keep at least some presence out there at all times. If you can't afford ads, then you've got to have boots on the ground. And you don't get to do vacations. And absolutely no vacations to Maine when you're running for office in Connecticut (Remember John Kerry's vacation after the nomination? That most assuredly cost him votes and momentum. These people need to figure out that if they need a day off, they should do it quietly somewhere, telling no one and doing it wherever the campaign happens to have dumped them at that moment). And getting off message? Where did that come from? Lamont could have "broadened" himself without just dropping the war issue.

But that's one of the oldest, hoariest stories around: "He's inexperienced," they say, so the guy goes overboard producing white papers on every conceivable topic under the sun. No, no, no! You pick 2 or 3 issues that resonate deeply with your voters -- not what they claim is important, per se, although it might be, but mostly what sets people off on rants. In the case of an opponent like Holy Joe, you look at his "strengths," like his ability to bring pork to Connecticut, and then you pull a Rovian reversal on it. Lieberman, I thought, was always vulnerable not just on the war -- but, of course, especially on the war -- but also on his being a sock puppet for the banking and insurance industries. Here's the guy always claiming to be so damned moral, and in fact he's a shill for some of the most immoral sociopaths around.

So Lamont should have bashed on the war endlessly, without a break. And he should have "broadened" his positions by bashing on Lieberman's obscene relationships with corrupt lobbyists and industries. And then thrown in a few sound bites, with specifics as needed, about the other 50 issues one could always name. Simple. Watch old Rove: this is exactly how he does it (only, he's completely immoral about it ... but, still, it's basically the same thing).

And then we wonder why we lose elections.

Of course, there's the money issue. Although I've read that the Democrats have been pulling in terrific amounts of contributions, have been running even or even ahead of the GOP on fundraising, etc., when I read about specific campaigns, it's always the same story: again and again and again and again and again, the GOP has been dumping more cash into specific campaigns than the Democrats. And not a little more: usually twice as much. NYTimes this morning told about how, quietly, there's a huge battle going on for control of state legislatures. The Democrats control fewer of them, although have 3 more seats total (out of some 7,000 or so) than the GOP. But, all that could change on Tuesday, which is an important thing since state legislatures control districting. (And, I might add, it's governorships and the like that generate new generations of political leaders for the national ticket).

So in the middle of that story, what do I see but that the national Democratic Party has poured something like $7 million into these campaigns, up substantially from a few years ago. And the GOP: $20 million. Just an example, one more, of what I'm talking about. (And then you read about all these Democratic reps and Senators in safe seats sitting on multi-million dollar warchests. I absolutely agree with Kos and MyDD and the rest: those people ought to be coughing up a third or even a half of that for wide distribution to other campaigns. Kerry, for example. And Hillary. Yeah, they want to run for president. So ... raise money when THAT comes up, but in the meantime help the damned Party save the country.)

One thing I might disagree with Roger about: I don't think Lieberman's closeness with the banking and insurance industries is much of a liability in Connecticut, which has a heavy insurance presence in Hartford, and accounts for a lot of jobs in the state. It's the same with Biden in Delaware -- the electorate just is not going to hold against those associations against them, and, in fact, probably vote for them because of the connections and the pork they bring in.

BTW Aren't Lieberman's supporters embarrassed to vote for a man who called his party "Connecticut for Lieberman" instead of "Lieberman for Connecticut"? Aren't our elected officials supposed to serve us, and not the other way around?