Newly-named Napolitano Department of Homeland Security spokebot Sean Smith tried to create the illusion of an illegitimate victory by Democratic Senate challenger Ned Lamont in August 2006 when he invented spurious charges of website-hackery and sold them to Villager media gasbags like Chris Matthews.

We were way down in the polls and I was busy leaving messages on answering machines when a young volunteer came bounding into my rabbit warren and announced breathlessly, "Paul Newman is on the line." A little skeptical, I shot back that I was on the line with Vladimir Putin so hold all calls, but our savvy volunteer suggested that this was a call worth taking.

Senator Dodd, what's the going rate? Could Lieberman stay in the caucus and keep his chairmanship if he gave the DSCC just $200K? $150K? 50K? $9.99? As the cliche goes, it seems we've established what the Dems in the Senate are -- now we're just haggling over the price.

Ned Lamont visited the Big Tent today. He's kinda like Mick Jagger for bloggers. With the serious possibility that Joe Lieberman will be McCain's VP choice, it was great to see Ned and celebrate the fact that together,  two years ago, we kicked Joe out of the Democratic party.

We'll have video up tomorrow. But everyone else is just catching up to what we knew two years ago.  

We were f*&#ing right.

Can we just dispense with the charade that Joe Lieberman is backing John McCain because he's a man of principle who will back the best candidate, regardless of party? Or that he's attacking Barack Obama because he really thinks he's a Marxist? Joe Lieberman, whom Chris Durang once called a "sanctimonious Hobbitt," had his ass kicked out of the Democratic party. He's a petty, bitter little man and he's backing John McCain because of his own personal political upside.

In thoroughly unsurprising news today, the Ned Lamont campaign was cleared of any wrong-doing in the crash of Lieberman's server leading up to primary day in 2006. The Stanford Advocate reports that the FBI determined--way back on October 25, 2006--that Lieberman's campaign bears all responsibility for the server crash. Case closed, right? No. Not on the outstanding legal issues arising from the campaign, anyway.

I started transcribing this video but frankly I'm just too pissed to do it. Although the investigation in to the incident was concluded in 2006, due to the perserverence of the Stamford Advocate the results were revealed today, and found what we all know to be true on Lamont/Lieberman primary day 2006 -- Joe Lieberman crashed his own website. But that didn't matter.

So, we have no progressive candidate. We have no Wellstone, no Feingold, no ideologically based movement person. My question is this: which of these candidates is more likely to reveal an inner Lieberman of some form once in power? I don't have an answer. People can believe what they choose to believe, but both candidates have Liebermanish historical tendencies and both propel narratives reminiscent of Lieberman, the earlier years. The ultimate question I will have for supporters of either candidate during these days of pie fights will be, whoever gets power, what will you hold your winning candidate accountable for once in office, assuming s/he wins? If your winner gets some accountability fire from people who once supported your opponent, will you simply defend your winner, or will you join in for merited criticism?

Both Obama and Clinton betrayed Lamont and all of us during the 2006 campaign. The only one of the three remaining Democratic candidates who actually went to Connecticut and put his shoulder to the wheel for Lamont was John Edwards.

If Lamont had gotten Obama's agreement to filibuster FISA in exchange for his endorsement, as Stoller says, I can see why Ned might have come out for Obama at this point in time. But he didn't. So under the circumstances, I'm a bit puzzled why he didn't show respect for Edwards and defer this kind of decision until his future was clear.

Joe Lieberman, who owes his Senate seat to Republicans who wanted someone more conservative than Lowell Weicker, the principled Rockefeller Republican who sealed Nixon's doom by backing impeachment, has done it again: He's screwed another politician named Clinton. The first time was September 3, 1998. The Republican CoupGate push against Bill Clinton was faltering, as most of America liked the job Bill was doing and didn't want him