Let’s see, this week he’s already castigated the “Democratic leadership” — Pelosi and Reid – for “politicizing” the Foley matter, now he attacks the head of the DNC.

Uh, you guys threw him under the bus, continue to castigate and vilify him at every turn, and somehow Joe Lieberman is supposed to turn the other cheek and say, “Thank you Sir, may I have another?”

Good Lord. You sow what you reap. I only hope that Joe has the good sense to not throw his support towards the caucus that stabbed him in the back when he’s re-elected.

And he will be re-elected.

That’s the most delightful part of this whole thing.

Was Howard’s head seriously impacted, or were injuries minor?

What hospital did they send him to?

Come on, details, folks, details!

—

To sum up sentiments, please click this link:Boo!

This ad falls under the category of unintended consequences. If the target is young, hip voters or voters who think that Bush and his henchman Lieberman have created a climate of fear to further their own political fortunes, then the ad clearly will resonate. But what about all those squishy voters, the ones in the middle? Do you think they’ll find it amusing to be laughed at for feeling wary or for a having a sense of uneasiness over the events unfolding in the world? What about the older voters? Do you think they’ll find it amusing or funny that they find the world to be a more dangerous and scary place?

Ned Lamont has had some really good ads. However this one is a little too clever by half. It has the potential to backfire. It appears to me that it has been created in a vacuum. By itself, the ad is funny. But in the context of a world that grows more dangerous every day (think of voters who worry about terrorism, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea), the ad that to some may seem funny and hip, may seem to others “unserious” and to still yet others, mocking.

Who is the ad intended to reach? What message is it supposed to deliver? While I am not on the ground in Connecticut, it appears to me that it misses it mark and may have unintended consequences. Ned already has the votes of the voter group who would find the ad funny and hip. But what about those squishy middle–of-the-road voters? Most of them are worried about Iraq and terrorism. Now along comes N. Korea testing a nuclear weapon. And what about those older voters, the ones who always take the time to vote? It’s a rapidly changing, more dangerous world for them. Not that this isn’t true of younger voters, but they’re more willing to take risks on a new approach, a new leader. There’s a reason that incumbents get re-elected easily. The voters already know them and unless they screw up a lot they tend to stay around as long as they want. That’s because a lot of voters (especially older voters and middle-of-the-road voters) don’t really give a challenger a serious hearing unless they’ve first decided they might like to change horses. Ned Lamont is doing well as a challenger because a lot of people have decided that they don’t want Lieberman to represent them anymore. But those last few votes needed to cinch the deal for Ned Lamont are always the toughest to get. They’re the voters who won’t make up their mind until the end or the voters who aren’t quite comfortable enough with Ned Lamont yet.

The ad worries me because every challenger to an incumbent Senator or Representative has to clear the hurdle of comfortability. The last few votes that win a campaign for a challenger come from the people who have finally cleared the hurdle of feeling comfortable with tossing out the “tried-and-true” incumbent and putting a new face in his/her place. It’s not unlike wearing an old shoe even after it’s way past it’s time. It fits, it’s comfortable and the wearer may know it’s time for a new shoe but they hold on to the old shoe as long as they can. At some point they become comfortable with trying on a new shoe. And then it’s goodbye old shoe. In general, the older the voter, the more risk adverse they are (they tend to stick with the incumbent).

Will one ad lose votes? No, but it may turn enough of those “last few” voters off just enough that Ned Lamont will end up having to expend a lot of work just to bring them back to the point where he can work again to try to win their votes. In other words, the unintended consequence of the ad is that it picks up the goal post and moves it farther downfield for a group of voters that the candidate may need to push him over the top .

There is a fine line in using humor in politics. I worry that this ad may cross the line for some of the voters that Ned Lamont may need. It’s O.K. to mock the political opposition using fear for political gain. It’s a potentially damaging misfire to use mocking humor in a way that can be misconstrued as mocking voter’s fears. Not only does it have the potential to alienate some voters but it can make the candidate appear as less likeable and/or “unserious” to other voters (especially older voters). Poll after poll has shown that middle-of-the-road voters don’t like the Bush policies and don’t much like Bush himself anymore. What they’re looking for is an alternative. Failure to provide an attractive alternative for many of these voters could result in a default vote for the status quo or in them not voting at all.

I’m not sure what this ad is supposed to accomplish. What it does do is appeal to the voters who already feel this way and who will vote for Ned Lamont, if they vote. At this stage in the game, is this where the campaign should be? Usually one turns to mobilizing the core voters in the final and waning days of the campaign when it’s all about the ground game – turnout. If the goal of this ad is to show voters that the opposition uses fear for political advantage then I suspect that this goal can be better met by using a non-humorous approach. Keith Olbermann has done a great job of pointing out how the Administration has used fear for political gain.

Does this ad make the best case against Lieberman? Voters tend to fire an incumbent because they perceive them as being out-of-touch, non-responsive to the needs of the community, embroiled in scandal, having impaired judgement or no longer trustworthy (having lost faith with constituents). It would appear to me that the overarching theme for any campaign against Joe Lieberman would be that he has exhibited such a stunning lack of judgement on the issues of war and peace that he can no longer be trusted to represent the people of Connecticut. The narrative to drive this point home in the last 4 weeks of the campaign easily writes itself. All messaging should reinforce the main narrative. This ad message doesn’t do that. It’s message is more tangential to the race. The ad, if developed differently, could be used to deliver a national message, from Democrats, exposing how the Bush Administration and the Republican Representatives and Senators have used a climate of fear to scare up votes. But I’m not sere that it would be money well-spent there either.

In summary, I don’t believe that this ad meets its intended objective and worse, it may actually be harmful. If I were a competent Lieberman campaign consultant, I’d welcome the ad because it leaves an open door wide enough that one could drive a political mack truck through it with middle-of-the-road and older voters.

P.S. – The latest Bob Shamansky (OH-12) animated ad very effectively ties his opponent to Bush in a funny way that cuts through the media clutter.

If the Democratic establishment – including the Clintons – believed that Lieberman would come out as a Republican if he wins Nov. 7th, what would they being doing now? Wouldn’t Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, even Big Dog get over to CT to appear with Lamont? I thought Hillary was going to help out. I ahven’t seen Chris Dodd showing up. Lieberman’s ad could be countered by a big Dem establishment appearance or ad for Ned – (See, he’s one of us!)

I don’t get it!!

They want him to fail. Grassroots is too much of a threat – it takes too much power away from the center.

They think we’ll forgive and forget – but I don’t think we will – at least I won’t

What are the odds that Lieberman will join the Republican Party if he wins Nov. 7th?

Probability is 1.

To Arms!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15200153

Unless this is a Snipe hunt/ wild goose chase, we know where we should be sending our support now.

Thoughts?

Put DeWine with the wingnuts, shake ‘em all up…

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..-straight/