Joe looked awfully angry. It's a shame he didn't fight back so hard against Dick Cheney in 2000.

Joe looks a lot more comfortable when Sean Hannity is asking the questions!

Lieberman sounds tense, you can hear it in his voice. Lamont sounded green, though he found his voice at times. But the whole thing could have used stronger moderators.

I agree about the moderating. Aren't they supposed to control the debate a little bit? Liberman wouldn't shut up and kept acting like the last word was his right or something.

I listened to the debate on C-Span and I wondered how the two looked.

I thought Joe did a pretty good job of stressing the length of his record and he stressed all the good work he's done for CT. But as Lamont pointed out, CT ranks 49 out of 50 in federal largesse so getting rid of Lieberman doesn't seem like it would hurt CT all that much.

Anti-war sentiment is high in CT and strongly felt. Joe's just on the wrong side of this one.

With that said, Lamont was not that impressive and seemed pretty green. That laundry list of universal healthcare, a deadline on withdrawl, environmental spending and outlawing earmarks seems like a tall order for a freshman senator to deliver and it just makes him look foolish and inexperienced. He has to do better.

I think this debate goes to the incumbent. Lamont just didn't seem experienced enough and he hurt his credibility by over promising.

Joe looked worst when they brought up his independent bid, but he effectively played up his strengths.

Favorite moment: Joe butchering the delivery of Reagan's classic line, There you go again.

Also, his repeated cry of Who's Ned Lamont practically begged to be answered, He's Not Joe Lieberman.

I think Lamont came off as pretty vanilla, not compelling but viable. That may be by design. Lamont is introducing himself to CT voters and engaging every Lieberman attack would make him angry. Lamont didn't look angry so that takes away credibility from Lieberman if he continues to make that charge. He's a millionaire businessman who is a volunteer school teacher. Would you prefer that candidate over a 30 year career politician on a generic ballot? If a majority prefer a fresh face then Lamont will be the next US Senator from Connecticut.

Lieberman came off as very negative and nit picky and I think Lamont's best response was calling Lieberman's attacks "poppycock", which they were. Lieberman's embrace of earmarks may come back to bite him in an election year that is sure to focus on reform. The CT papers have done a good job of fact checking the candidates and I'm guessing Lieberman will look poorer after the papers dissect their respective debate statements.

"Green" is the perfect word. I don't think either candidate came off all that well. A more polished Lamont could have (should have) delivered a KO tonight.

It's not that he promised things he can't do per se. It's that is so transparently impossible. And yes, I think it does hurt even a republican when he claims not that he wants to end abortion, but that if elected he WILL end abortion.

Joe didn't do great, but he reminded voters I have experience. I deliver things for CT and he does. CT is upset with him because he has been on the wrong side of issues like the war and supreme court nominations. That's why people are looking at alternatives.

Lamont needed to say, I will deliver for CT AND I will take the right position on these issues you care about. Lamont tried to do it but he needs to be more effective. Connecticut voters want to know they are not jeopardizing their federal funding by replacing a senator with seniority and track record with an unknown.

Lamont needs to build credibility with the voters.

This debate was Lieberman's to lose or Lamont to win. Lamont didn't win and Lieberman didn't really lose.

Should we expect the incumbent to win? Yes. Did Liebeman win? He didn't lose.

It only transparently impossible to support Universal Health Coverage if you are in the pocket of the Insurance industry like Joe Lieberman.

Every country in Western Europe and Canada has better, broader health care delivery systems than the US at a lower cost. What's so transparently impossible about copying their approach? We could dublicate the VA to cover every American and implement a payroll tax to foot the bill akin to Social Security and it would be done tomorrow.

I'm you are compelled to cater to Big Pharma, the AMA, and Insurance companies then we continue with our half-baked approach.

I think new federal legistlation concerning Part D should be radically overhauled along bulk purchasing guidelines.

But real healthcare reform is happening on the state level. I think several more states will have some form of expanded care in place before congress will get the balls to wade in.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the only presidential veto came on a healthcare bill? nah.. the president would just issue a signing statement delaying implentation until we conclude the GWOT.

How about the bills get marked up in relavent committees based on need and then the House and Senate bills get reconciled in an open fashion? Is that too much to ask?

I understand that compromise and horse-trading are the coin of the realm but a principled junior member should have plenty of company in standing up to earmark pork. "I'll fund your bullshit if you fund mine" is a recipe for waste and abuse. It's something Russ Feingold and James Inhofe can agree upon.

I disagree with the argument but if you use Lieberman's own standards as the bringer of pork he's a poor saleman for Connecticut. Put Lieberman's efforts on behalf of Electric Boat up against Sen. John Warner's efforts protecting Newport News and the junior Senator from CT has gotten schooled time and time again.

Lamont looked a bit nervous and repeated himself during some of the answers but he gave good responses. Lieberman was very confident and polished but basically used Republican style talking points and attack style in the debate.

If you didn't know you were tuning in to a Democratic primary debate it is likely that most would assume Lieberman was a Republican.

The citing of JFK has got to stop. Joe is no Liberal. As a matter of fact just look at the way he says Liberal in the debate. He uses the prototypical denegrating tone of the term as if Frank Luntz were coaching him before he took the stage.

Lamont did not look as polished as the 16 year veteran politican in Lieberman, but he was much more in tune with the ideology of most Democrats. Lieberman wildly tried to rewrite his history of stances on the issues debated such as Social Security.

Joe Lieberman should learn to vote against cloture before he starts talking about what he has voted against when it was already safe to do so.

I agree that you can make a good case that Lieberman has done a poor job of bringing home the pork. Lamont didn't do that.

He called it wrong and when Lieberman said that's the way the game is played, Lamont waffled. He called earmarking bad and gave the impression maybe he wouldn't do what it took to get what he could as a junior senator. he argued Joe got little, but then gave the impression he would get none. And that doesn't sound too good.

He didn't articulate well on this issue at all.

Yeah I agree with that. It seems that the pundits in this thread are under the impression that the average Connecticut voter has as "sophisticated" an analysis of what transpired as they do. At a very elemental level Liberman came out looking tense, nervous, and under pressure. Lamont came out looking calmer, and more confident: on the right side of the moral issues. As for substance: do you really think that Lieberman can shake his pro Iraq stance with the lame "I support the President on principle" given that thousands of men women, children and soldiers have died? Libberman has BLOOD on his hands, and that will be fatal in my view.

Just flipped the TV on during Lamont's opening statement, and got interrupted twice thereafter, but having watched about a gazillion debates over the years and having at least a little perspective on what undecided voters are looking for, I'd say the following:

1. Lieberman hit a homerun. He was aggressive, clearly WANTED to win badly, something a lot of voters actually look for, which is one of W's secrets. He reminded us over and over and over about how long we've known him, and what you see is what you get. And the opposite about Lamont. He got testy and angry a couple times, and I was hoping he would go off like a firecracker and blow it. But he didn't, and even those moments came off well: I was uncomfortable only because I sort of felt he was bullying a little kid. He was calm, polished, and had good bullet points he kept repeating about delivering for CT (whether or not they were true, and Lamont chose stupidly to challenge earmarks in general rather than Lieberman's performance in getting them). He also smiled a lot, something Lamont almost never did, at least not on camera.

2. Lamont was about what I expected: Smart, well informed, policy-centric, but kind of clueless about the first basics of televised politics, namely that if you don't repeat simple points over and over then nothing gets through. He also occasionally did look (literally) like a deer in headlights. He would expand his eye sockets until they were the size of grapefruits, like there was a ghost in the telemprompter. Obviously hasn't been on TV much. Seemed nervous and ultra-serious. Did not radiate control or confidence, which tended to make Lieberman look like the adult to his whipper-snapper kid.

3. I thought Lamont's negatives on Lieberman came through OK, but then again, everyone knows them already. I thought Lieberman's negatives on Lamont came through better than expected. Lamont did not have a good response to the Greenwich criticism (and notice how Lieberman constantly repeated the town name, Greenwich being an extremely rich, elite enclave closer to New YOrk than Hartford or New Haven, Lieberman's home town).

All in all, I'd say Lamont benefitted from being on the same stage, but at the same time was outclassed as a debater and presenter. Since Lieberman was leading before, I suspect the pace at which that lead is shrinking will now slow down. Will it slow down enough? I sure hope not. But I'm now wavering back over the line and predicting Joe hangs on barely. It's going to be a barn burner.

Some thoughts:

- Joe did a decent job reminding voters why they have voted for him in the past. Obviously that's ground that an incumbent needs to cover, but he made some good points there (at least ones that CT voters would care about).

- Ned hit many of his points about Joe's flim-flammery, as did the panel to their credit, so that was a plus for the Lamont side.

- Joe didn't come off as being "above it all" as he should have being a sitting Senator. He made some really good jabs in that arena, and he may well have shored up some more votes via this debate.

- Ned's incursion into this race has clearly put Joe off his game. Joe seems to have been blindsided by all of this.

As a registered Dem from Connect-The-Dots for many years, let me offer this. There's a deep running feeling here that Joe has abondoned the state for going on six years now. He left his Senate chair in 2000 to run for VP, and he thought placing a coaster on the bar would be enough to wisk him back into the chamber. Fair enough. I guess that gambit paid off. Then he left us again for that silly presidential run in '04, and frankly we all sort of laughed. (Of note, he doesn't like coming back to CT. He's much more confortable hanging out in DC.) Now, when he's got a real challenger for the seat, he punts and says he'll garner signatures for an independant run.

His sense of entitlement, and this Lamont annoyance were on full display tonight. Joe wants his ticket punched so he can go back to where he feels at home; snuggled in DC. He wants to "reach across party lines" to "get things done." He'll never realize that the political operation in the White House actually hates his guts. Indeed, a very useful foil, providing them cover. To them he's like a little crack bunny: serve it up free at the begining and they come back begging for more.

He's got tons of cash though, and the media here loves him. I would bet he wins the Dem primary. At least we have Dodd.

- Fuzzy from Mansfield, Willimantic, Hartford, Newington, New Brtain, Glastonbury, and Middletown.

Lamont came across as sure of himself with command of the issues. Joe-mentum is dying trying to paint Lamont as a flip-flopper. The issue is always the incumbent yet Joe is running away from his record and questioning the character of his opponent.

I know that Ned Lamont is the darling of the liberal blogoshpere but this is the first time I had seen him in a speaking setting.

Because this was my first exposure to Lamont I didn't score the debate on who had the better ideas. That would be unfair. Could the new kid cut it under the direct fire of a debate. Does he have stage presence? For the first 8-10 minutes I looked for answers to these questions from Lamont. Lamont passed the test with flying colors.

From then on I looked at the questions and how they answered the question asked. Over and over I thought Lamont gave the straighter answer. Accordingly I thought Lamont was the clear winner in this debate.

But the one gaffe of the debate was by Lamont when he refused to say he would disclose his tax forms. While this is a silly rite, disclosing the tax forms is one of those tickets all politicans must punch.

DallasNE

I think yours is a great analysis.   

IMO...This was Ned Lamont's first introduction to the State of Connecticut.  He did come off nervous and unsure.  Lieberman was as testy as I have ever seen him.  And I think that testiness underscored how much he wants to still represent the people of Connecticut in the US Senate.  Lamont tried to associate Lieberman with the POTUS saying supporting Lieberman is like supporting George Bush.  I thought Lieberman deflected those criticisms well citing the myriad of policies on which he disagrees with Bush and driving home the point that this is a one issue race.  For some voters it is but for many others it is not.  And I think Lieberman continually hitting on the point that he was very important to saving the sub base and all those jobs scored him lots of points.  The saving of the submarine base was HUGELY positive news up here regardless of party.  And he took his share (if not more so, lol) of the credit for it... 

Lamont made good points with me on his opposition to the war.  Lieberman's "flip-flop" allegations weren't effective from what I heard.  Most agree that it is time to start getting out of Iraq but there are big differences in opinion in how to do it within and between the parties.  Lieberman just repeated the Bush talking point of "we'll know when it is time to leave when that time comes".  That isn't a plan at all and is no better a position (and I think worse) then he tried to say Lamont had.

I think back to the Kennedy-Nixon debate.  Kennedy looked more polished, at ease and "presidential" then Nixon did, which swayed the electorate more so then the issues did.  I think a comparison between Lamont and Nixon can be made.  This was Ned Lamont's first and best chance to impress the people of Connecticut.  Looking nervous and uneasy isn't the impression he needed to make...though I still think the party's nomination is still very much in the air.  Lamont might not have won but he didn't shoot himself in the foot.  Also I think Lieberman was also talking to independant and republican voters who support him and much as the democrats.  Either as the democratic nominee or a petitioning candidate Lieberman is still the odds on favorite in a general election... 

Although Lamont seemed a bit out of sorts, I was totally put off by the Rovian flavor of Lieberman's tactics. I hope Connecticut voters had the same feeling of revulsion.

I was also dismayed that Ned Lamont didn't take a more statesman like approach in chiding Lieberman about his obvious position that bringing home the bacon is more important than participating in national governance.

I also would have liked for him to have repulsed Lieberman's attack of "one issue" by owning the issue by acknowleging that it is THE issue of the day and pointing out that his opponent's "strength of conviction" is out of step not only with his constituency but with the national polity as well. He would have done well to point out that although the Senator feels that the lives of our men and women and the emptying of our treasury to remove Saddam Hussein was a good bargain, the majority of Americans do not. Perhaps the Senator feels that his "bringing money to the state" is all the representation he is required to perform. Perhaps he feels that the opinions of the unwashed masses don't merit his considerations. He acts as if the pork he brings home is hush money to buy your acceptance of him replacing the desires of the people with his more well informed opinion.

I am surprised the Senator hasn't used the expression "Cut and Run". Since he is so used to toeing the Republican line, he should go ahead and adopt their rhetoric as well. Oh I'm sorry with "there you go again" and repeatedly and falsely accusing Lamont of "flip-flopping" it appears he already has.

I hate to say it, but on the issues and in terms of who made a better case to be Senator, this debate wasn't close. Lieberman won, hands down. I say that as someone who is deeply disappointed in Sen. Lieberman and who very much welcomes the campaign of Ned Lamont. My views on the debate are based on my professional experience (a national champion debater in college and professor who taught debate, argumentation, persausion, rhetoric, and political communication at the university level for nearly a decade), not my personal preference in this race.

Only if one were turned off by a candidate making an aggressive case for themselves could they find Lamont victorious in this debate, and I'm not sure people will be turned off by Joe being vigorous and unrelenting in defending his record.

Liberman showed he was the experienced politician that he is. He was aggressive and basically made all the right moves. Lamont got off to a very slow start and came across as a bug-eyed neophyte who let Joe roll him on his two big issues: Iraq and who's a better Dem. Lamont got off one good line about he'd be the one to stick up to the Bush agenda, but that was half way through the debate after Joe had already established that he votes with the Dems 90% of the time, stood up to Bush on X, Y, and Z, and was a life long Dem. He put his 18 year record on the line, defended his unpopular stuff well, hyped his bringing home the bacon to CT, and asked who the hell is this guy named Ned who wants to take my place, and why, what's he going to do for you that I cannot. I did not, however, find him acting as though he deserved this seat and being arrogant about his right to keep it. He has certainly sounded this way before, but last night he acted as though he were willing to defend his seat and justify why he should keep it.

Lieberman may have been too aggressive for those expecting to see a calm, cool,elder statesman, but he showed he was willing to stand up to a challenge and really cleaned Lamont's clock on the issues. He may not have won over some of the Dems who were already raging for a change, but any borderline fence-sitters and moderate to indy Dems had to like what they saw.

Lamont never really direclty answered questions and was clearly trying to mentally call up what he was supposed to say (which rarely happened). He was all over the place repeating tag phrases while looking and sounding like a novice. He made his best points attacking Bush, but never made a good case for why he should replace Lieberman.

I understand your analysis and I know I’m sitting here in Texas and do not know a lot about Connecticut state politics but I believe that Lieberman will not get any credit for being a life long Democrat or voting so many times with the Dems. It reminds me of the notion that Kerry and his handlers believed that because he was a Vietnam War hero that he would get credit for being strong on National Security. After all the "reporting for duty" and other rhetoric his persona just did not resonate strong on national security. And that was that was the biggest hole in the campaign is that neither he nor John Edwards had any National Security credentials. And this is the type of candidate we got from the Iowa and NH process at a time when National Security is the primary issue for American voters.

Lieberman will not be able to convince voters he is a true Democrat when he uses Republican talking points.

I support Lamont too, but with the reservations you've stated very well. I didn't see/hear the debate. My opinion is based on personal acquaintance plus reading some interviews with him.