The New York Times chronicles the difficult re-election campaign of Senator Joe Lieberman, and discusses how he was slow to realize the trouble his campaign was in. They note that some worry it may be too late to organize 'a strong turnout operation.'
That seems a well-founded worry, if Kevin Rennie was correct when he wrote a little while ago that Lieberman was unable even to accurately identify his supporters.
Oddly, Republicans have developed a real interest in this race. If Lieberman wins the primary, this contest will go to the back burner and Lieberman will be re-elected in a walk. If Lamont wins however, several scenarios develop in which Republicans gain: either Alan Schlesinger or a replacement Republican candidate wins a 3-way race, Lieberman accepts the Republican nomination and wins, or Lieberman wins as an Independent, but elects not to caucus with Democrats.
Apart from these observations, this piece gives us a reason to read the Times tomorrow. It notes:
[The editorial page of The New York Times on Sunday endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with Mr. Bush on national security.]
Can you not wait to read how the New York Times will explain to Joe Lieberman how bipartisanship works? Perhaps Paris Hilton may write a piece about avoiding the limelight, and Donald Trump will offer something on humility.
A piece as funny as this is likely to be gives you reason to get up early on a Sunday morning.
Back to the top.