Yeah that's the one. Excellent job gang.

It could use a little tightening up for 30 second/1 minute ads.

Even as is, it should hit the 50+ demographic quite hard. It should given pause to many senior voters, which is exactly the O'Reilly base in CT.

BTW its obvious why you are spending time on Lieberman, he's everything that's wrong with the democratic party and he's too dangerous to continue lurking and causing problems under the current administration. Had Joe showed some principle in August 2003, recognizing the bad news and forcing the president to own up to it, we would not be here now. Instead Joe decided to don the Rush Limbaugh Mask and abuse his fellow supporters. Not a smart move then. Not a smart move now.

It's a great ad, even if I'm not sure I understand exactly which audience its intended for.

I think, though, there is really something in this idea that a certain kind of voter really wants to believe Lieberman when he talks this way--they really want to buy into the idea that there is a 'plan to win' in Iraq.  It reminds me of that old line about people being conned not by the conman, but by their own greed.  

I hope we win in Connecticut, but either way--the clarity of thinking by Progressive organizers coming out of this race will be a huge dividend moving forward.

What's spooky to me is how the idea that Lieberman will ruin the chances or effectiveness of a Democratic majority in the Senate seems to have taken on a ghost-like quality.  In fact, the 800 lb ghost in the room.  If Lamont is going to win by grabbing Democrats away from Lieberman, then one might think that the thought of Liberman ruining the long-awaited return to a Democratic majority would carry more weight than Liberman's Iraq stand.  While the Iraq war may have appeared to differentiate Liberman and Lamont, I wonder if it was simply not a proxy for the sense that Lieberman is a Republican - against us Democrats, not with us.  If so, then scaring Democrats with the thought that their hopes for a Senate majority will be dashed by a Liberman victory will go further in winning them to Lamont than will Liberman's prevaricating stand on Iraq.

Now if this was actually professionally done, with just the Nixon video crosscut with the Lieberman quotes and one wipescreen of dates, it would be a good ad.

Nixon: 1969
Lieberman: 2006

The war to break the stranglehold of the triangulators an prevaricators is going to be long and requires a lot of persistence. They have the institutional advantage and lots of money.

Think civil rights, womens suffrage! These battles were over generations. The progressives are making progress but its going to take a lot more effort and time to losen the grip on power that the elites have.

Ben Cardin's campaign has had some success with their ads that clearly link Bush with Steele. The ads effectively undercut all of Steele's attempts to disguise his affiliations. Perhaps Lamont's campaign can add Bush-Lieberman to their Nixon-Lieberman parallels if they are not already doing so.

Like it or not, elections are about policy.  In the crudest of terms, about who does what to whom, and who gets what from whom.  In more elevated terms--if we're lucky--about the common good or the special interests.

The idea of voting for someone on the basis of their "integrity," is like chosing an accountant based on how they look in a bathing suit--it's totally irrelevant, unless you don't actually need an accountant.

To put it simply, an adulterer who votes to raise the minimum wage, extend unemployment insurance, protect air quality and defend reproductive rights beats the hell out of a man of pious virtue who votes against all of the above.  It's just that simple.

Nowadays, however, we can look back nostalgically on the "good old days," when people foolishly voted for candidates because of their integrity.  Nowadays, anyone running under the banner of "integrity" is almost invariably a charlatan, with substantially less integrity than the other candidates around.

And so, the question is not just for the Republican Party anymore.  It's for everyone, really: How low can you go?

Me, personally, I want a better class of criminal.  I'm for trading up, not down.