Lieberman was
supposed to say, in his "closing remarks" speech:
If after hearing the truth about where I stand on Iraq, you still want to cast your vote solely on that one issue, then I respect your decision.
When Lieberman gave that speech, he couldn't pull the trigger. He omitted that sentence.
He simply doesn't respect those who disagree with him on the war.
So instead of respect, he offers scorn.
He said a victory for Lamont will send a message to the country: “In the Democratic Party, there’s no room for strong-on-security Dems.” He said that would be disastrous for the Democrats. “You can’t win in this country,” he said, “unless you assure people" that you aren’t going to compromise on national security. He said he has backed the war on terror because he never forgets about the “radical Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and want to do it again.”
And remember, nothing shows "strength" in national security than backing two losing wars which have so decimated our armed forces that we can't respond to real threats.
Update: Sirota gives us the script to four possible results tomorrow -- a Lieberman blowout win (+10 points), a narrow Lieberman win, a narrow Lamont win, and a big Lamont victory (+5 points).