Well, first of all I went to the Hardball web site and voted for Ned Lamont as "the winner".
But, while I thought Ned Lamont did well in certain spots .. overall .. Joe Lieberman just lied & lied & lied -- and also interrupted frequently and appointed himself 30 seconds of extra time (2nd and 3rd rebuttals) -- throughout the debate and I was disappointed that Ned Lamont did not slap down Lieberman harder or better for all of these numerous false charges & lies.
I realize that it is hard to answer a question, promote your core message, and also respond to numerous attacks all simultaneously in just 90 or 30 seconds.
But Lieberman was really laying it on thick all throughout the debate and also falsely claiming progressive credentials he never earned -- whereas truthfully he has opposed universal health care, supported Dick Cheney's Energy Schemes, opposed holding Bush accountable for WMD lies, etc.
I was particularly unnerved by Ned Lamont allowing Lieberman to lie and say that "he wants to bring the troops home too as quickly as possible" -- when Lieberman had made a big public statement a couple of months ago declaring that we need to stay in Iraq unconditionally for several more years (4-5 years or something).
The uninformed watcher of this debate will mistakenly think that Joe Lieberman is far more "progressive" than he really is, unfortunately.
Hopefully, Joe Lieberman's style of debating -- nearly an imitation of FOX's Sean Hannity -- will turn off enough people and people will want to now take this opportunity to vote for change.
I thought Ned Lamont's best line was when he said that "Senator this is not about a career, this is about the people of Connecticut".
But overall, I'm a little concerned that this ambush of falsehoods by Lieberman was not as aggressively counter-pointed as it needed to be and that Lieberman may, in fact, gain from it.
I hope I'm wrong .. but I found myself cringing through most of the debate and wanting to throw things at the TV during the rest of it. I had expected Lieberman to look out-of-touch, old, and clueless -- instead Lieberman looked like a Pitbull and Ned Lamont looked like lunch. I did not feel good watching this debate.
All I can say is, had Joe Lieberman gone after Dick Milhouse Cheney with the same wild-abandon & aggressiveness that he did tonight against Ned Lamont (and as he also did in attacking Howard Dean in 2004), then Al Gore would have been our President for the past 6 years ... and then we'd have balanced-budgets, No War, strong economy, No successful "Terrorist/PNAC attack", No Torture, No Secrecy, Social-Security solvent for decades, We'd have the Kyoto Treaty ratified, there'd be hundreds of Green Car options to buy on the market today, and No North Korea Nukes, etc...
But, of course, that wasn't worth it to Joe Lieberman to fight for. His love fest with Dick Cheney in 2000 now stands in stark contrast with his kamacozi attack tonight on Ned Lamont.