I originally went to read Martin Peretz's insane ramblings because C&L had posted a link to it...here's Marty's reason
as to why Lieberman lost last night;
I was for Joe Lieberman. I wrote an article about the race between him and Ned Lamont in Monday's Wall Street Journal. It was not neutral. But, though it got plenty of attention in the blogs and on television, it did not, alas, help Joe very much. Worse can be said of Bill Clinton's stumping in Connecticut for Joe (and Hillary's endorsement, too.) When Clinton came into the state, Lieberman and Lamont were running dead even in the polls, more or less. Clinton's appearance began Lieberman's decline. Within two or three days, Lieberman was down by ten points. (In the last few days of the campaign, Lieberman recovered considerably ... but not enough.) I know there's some nostalgia in the Democratic Party for Clinton and for Hillary, too. But for many, in the party and out, the Clintons are a nightmare. A nightmare, as James Joyce said, from which we are trying to awake. The common wisdom is that Al Gore would have won in 2000 had he embraced Clinton more or had he allowed Clinton to embrace him. Well, look at what happened to Joe.
Well, as wrong as that post was, and as many different ways there are to attack it, he only makes it worse when he tries to defend himself later in the thread.....
Believe it or not, he actually asks
Well, what other factor can explain why Lieberman's numbers fell so precipitously?
Go get 'em people. Tell Marty about ALL the factors that can explain why Joe's numbers fell.
Oh, and don't forget to mention that Lieberman's numbers fell from a 55-point lead LONG before anybody named Clinton said a word about the race.