DCCyclone posted an excellent diary a four weeks ago titled "Lieberman, Alan Dixon, and Lamont's missed opportunity." The diary got only 20 comments and disappeared, but it made an excellent point, and now that the general election in Connecticut is starting, it's a chance for Lamont & his supporters to make a good point all over again.
While this could techinically fall under the "repetitive" category, it deserves much wider attention, particularly now that Lamont has won the nomination and Lieberman isn't leaving the race (yet).
DCCylone's original diary is: "http://www.dailykos.com/...
In 1992, Carol Moseley-Braun ran against incumbent Sen. Alan Dixon in the Illinois primary. Nobody gave her a chance in Hell, but she won. When Dixon lost, he
immediately endorsed Moseley-Braun in a gracious concession speech.
But is it really relevant today? Yes, it's both relevant and effective, particulary with a media that's all too eager to paint a perfectly reasonable Senate primary as the second coming of barbarians at the Gate ("Barbarians at the Gate II: Now they want to VOTE?!)
Consider: Alan Dixon and Joe Lieberman served in the Senate together for 4 years (1988-1992). Sample question: "Mr. Lieberman, In 1992, your colleague Sen. Alan Dixon lost the Dem. primary and endorsed his opponent the very next day. Why can't you do the same?" Anyone who's listening from the Lamont campaign, this could serve to remind independent voters that usually, when incumbents lose primaries, they respect the will of the voters (Jacob Javits (R-NY) in the U.S. Senate in 1980 notwithstanding, and he came in dead last in a 3-way race.)