It is a given that the debate between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman will generate endless discussions in the blogsphere...no aspect of last night's performance will be ignored. But what will the voters in Connecticut be reading this morning? Because no matter how important the netroots are to the Lamont campaign, how the debate is playing in Peoria is what really matters.
The Bristol Press didn't waste much ink before pointing out that:
Lieberman often interrupted Lamont, or spoke longer than his allotted time, prompting Lamont to say, "This isn't Fox News, sir," a network known for its confrontational style.
And the article returned to that theme:
He was very aggressive, and appeared defensive. He seemed to be angry that he was being challenged by a Democrat. I'm not sure that will play well with Democrats who are themselves angry with Bush and Lieberman's support.
They conclude that the debate was a tie, but the impression of Lieberman is one of rudeness, confrontation and arrogance.
The
Greenwich Time began by portraying Lieberman as "eager" for the debate, and then said of Lamont:
And Lamont, who initially appeared nervous before the cameras, quickly rose to the occasion in an hour-long verbal sparring match...
I think that the voters will forgive and in fact sympathize with Lamont's initial nervousness...especially when the article immediately follows with this:
"Senator Lieberman, if you won't challenge President Bush and his failed agenda, I will," Lamont said. "We have 135,000 of our bravest troops stuck in a bloody civil war (in Iraq). Let's have the debate."
Lamont succintly laid out the average American's problem with Iraq...Bush's policies aren't working, our people are dying there everyday and no one is talking about it.
Overall in tone and content, a very positive article for Ned Lamont.
From the Republican American, we get this headline:
Democrats spar before primary: Lamont holds his own with old pro Joe
Not surprisingly, the Republican American seems to have a rather Republican bent...it seemed more pro-Lieberman, at any rate. It begins by saying Lieberman went on the "offensive," while Lamont was trying to "impress a wider group" and to "prove he is credible." But the article did include key quotes from Lamont, including this one:
"Senator, you are the only person in Connecticut who is confused by my position on the war on Iraq," Lamont said. "President Bush rushed us into this war. He told us it would be easy, we would be welcomed as liberators, weapons of mass destruction, and Sen. Lieberman cheered on the president every step of the way when we should have asking the tough questions, and here we are and what do we do."
The article concluded with Lieberman's comments about Lamont's tax returns, an issue that I believe Lieberman will continue to pound on...and one that Lamont needs to respond to immediately.
The Hartford Courant at the start, was a mixed bag. It said that Lieberman "relentlessly attacked," which has a negative connotation...unfortunately that was followed with, "Lamont wide-eyed and visibly rattled in the opening minutes." But after comments from both sides claiming victory, there was this:
Undisputed was that Lieberman, who sees his re-election threatened for the first time since he won the seat in 1988...
And perhaps the writer then remembered why Lieberman is threatened, because the tone of the article seemed to change:
The battle was on.
They clashed on Iraq, Lieberman's penchant for supporting Republicans at crucial junctures, Lamont's own record of cooperating with the GOP as a Greenwich local official, Lamont's wealth - and Lieberman's intention to run as a petitioning candidate in November should he lose the primary.
"Are you a Democrat, or are you an independent? If you are going to run as a Democrat, play by the rules and stick with the Democratic rules, as I have," Lamont said.
Lieberman replied: "I've been a Democrat all my life and I must say that I laugh at Ned Lamont holding party loyalty up as a test of my candidacy. He fails that test. When he was on the Greenwich board [of selectmen] he voted 80 percent of the time with Republicans."
Lamont said Lieberman was equating voting with Republicans on potholes and stop signs with backing the Bush administration on the war.
And like the Bristol Press, this article cited an expert who questioned Lieberman's performance:
"Republicans and unaffiliateds probably want to hear that," Dautrich said, but he questioned if Democratic primary voters were moved. "The bottom line is this race is still about Lieberman's support for the Bush war policy. Lieberman didn't do anything to counter that assertion, which is why Lieberman has a race at all."
Well, we've always known that Lieberman appeals to the Republicans. And we also know how the outside-the-beltway Democrats feel about Iraq...
Overall the coverage seemed to be very positive for Lamont. When an incumbent Senator can't deliver a knock-out punch in a debate against a newcomer, that in and of itself is newsworthy. Even better that our candidate "rose to the occasion" and challenged Bush's favorite Democrat.