Lamont/Lieberman: Who's on first?

The latest in the Lamont/Lieberman race:

Of organized labor in Connecticut, the UAW and SEIU stayed neutral during the Dem primary that Ned Lamont won, and who, by the way, will be meeting with Hillary on Friday. What will they do now? Other big guns like AFSCME and the AFL-CIO leadership are sticking with Lieberman.... who, by the way, is on the ballot now...

One Californian writing in to the Hartford Courant blog seems very clear where he stands:
"Mr. Lieberman is neither an independent candidate, nor is he a candidate for the Independent Party of Connecticut. Mr. Lieberman is the candidate representing the 'Connecticut for Lieberman' Party. I'm not sure what platforms the party takes, but based on the name, I'm pretty sure it's about ensuring that Connecticut ensures the needs of it's Lieberman are better served through better governance. "Either way, please correct the error. He's not an independent, he is a party man just not the Democratic Party (who voted against him)."

Rush Limbaugh paused in his radio show on Sunday to remind us that Lieberman is still a liberal: "You know, folks, I want to say something here. I know that there is a lot of sentiment here attached to Joe Lieberman and there is a lot of appreciation for Joe Lieberman because he's right on the war on terror, and he is paying a price in the Democrat Party for supporting President Bush and the war, and that's great, and that's all well and good, and I know that there are some Republicans out there who are going to raise money for him and are going to vote for him, and that's fine, and that's all well and good. But let's not forget Joe Lieberman gets a 97 or 98 percent ADA rating. He is a full-fledged 100% liberal. ... "
Uhhh..... thanks, Rush.... I guess he's not the bargain some folks thought.... hmmmm.....

The New York Times puts it like this: "Mr. Lieberman’s stronger comments about Iraq and the Middle East seem a reflection of his desire to win over independents and Republicans who are considered more likely to support Mr. Bush and the war than Democratic primary voters."
Hmmmm..... I wonder which "independents" the author was thinking about here; clearly she didn't speak to any.....

And from Jackie Salit and Fred Newman's Talk/Talk, some thoughtful talk about what independents are doing and need to do:
Salit: On this theme, we talked last week about the mischaracterization of the independent movement as pro-war and Lieberman’s move to run “independent” bringing that to the surface.... [Six months ago] The question would have been: I can see how you’re going to get support from Republicans and from independents, but how are you going to make your case to Democrats who are opposed to the war? There would have been a presumption that there wasn’t a gap between McCain’s position on the war and where independent voters were at. I thought it was interesting that Gregory highlighted that cleavage.
Newman: I don’t know that independents can claim that anti-war base of support. It’s broader than the independent movement. It’s bigger than the independent movement. I think independents, who are a substantial base in and of themselves – 30 to 35 percent – need to engage the question of how they’re going to relate to the anti-war movement. Whether they can take it independent is the political question for independents. I don’t know if they can.....