Well folks, I volunteer to offer some objective analysis of the debate: Joe performed very well. Ned was shaky at times, seemingly nervous at the start, and had trouble articulating himself. Mr. Lieberman has been around the block for 18 years and his experience showed true tonight. He did a nice job of portraying Ned as blurry on Iraq, as a candidate without a stance on the war. I wasn't sure how this would play out, but he did it well, accusing Ned of taking 5 stances on Iraq. True or not, it worked. More of my boring analysis on the flip....
Ned had trouble responding to the: you are a single-issue candidate who doesn't even have a stance on that one issue. Why didn't Jed term the "Bush-Cheney-Lieberman" energy bill in his opening statement? Why didn't Ned suggest that Joe has never supported Universal Health Care in his opening statement? He played right into Lieberman's accusation's of him representing just one issue, poorly.
Ned should have said: Mr. Lieberman, you voted to impeach President Clinton for a sexual technicality, while failing to censure Bush on wire-tapping Americans. He made no mention of this.
Joe is a professional and he made his case strongly tonight for Conn. Ned's ID will go up, but Joe is a talented fellow - this election is going to be very difficult for Mr. Lamont to win.