Lieberman/Lamont

There's a lot of attention in the press to the Lamont win over Lieberman in Connecticut, and Lieberman's run as an independent:

* Eli Pariser commentary (Concord Monitor)* Don't count Lieberman out (Norwich Bulletin)* Andrew Sullivan commentary (UK Times online)* Michael Moore, Stalinist (Pioneer Press)* What it means for Hillary (NY Times Herald Record)* Not a national trend (Salem Statesman Journal)* Lowell Weicker sees the differences (Dallas Morning News)

And from last Sunday's Talk/Talk:
Salit: Your point about the methodology here is a good one. But, Lamont’s critics say he hasn’t articulated a particularly clear cut position on the war.
Newman: I don’t agree with them. I think it’s crystal clear to every voter in the state of Connecticut, certainly among the Democrats, who stands for what. Everyone knows what the issue is. It’s a vote on that question. And it’s about time that there was at least some vote on that question. It would be nice if there had been a national vote on it in the last presidential, but John Kerry decided not to run that way. These people won’t raise those kinds of questions in a clear cut way because they’re always trying to do something which they call “playing to the center.” But all you get from that is that you don’t have any clear cut policy choices....