The editor at the Politics desk should have sent this piece back for reorganization and rewrite. Early on, Lieberman's clumsy attack ad against Lamont is cited---but isn't described till much later, out of sequence. Had Dickerson approached the Lieberman camp for their take on the campaign and been rebuffed, seems like he would have said so. Yet Lamont, whom Dickerson plainly favors, is not presented with sufficient definition to explain why he should win---other than he's not Lieberman. (Indeed, the opening paragraph's description of his campaign DVD makes one wonder about the man's supposed "smarts.") Lieberman's stance baffles me (though not enough to go surfing to find an explanation), and a piece calls "Lieberman on the ... More »

Dickerson's profile of the landscape of the Connecticut Democratic Party primary is well-sourced, informative, even humorous. He presents the landscape well. That he acknowledges and corrects an assertion is also very forthcoming and should be applauded. Defintely covers the various points of view without taking sides.

This is a story with a headline about Lieberman, but really, it's about the campaign of the contender, Ned Lamont. The writer appears to have merely attended the campaign fund-raiser, fleshed out the story with some other knowledge he had--and never contacted Joe Lieberman to get comment. There is even a paragraph discussing Lieberman's options to leave the Democratic party, with no attribution other than Lieberman's "political advisors." The article calls Lieberman's campaign conventional and dumb." Now, I am a Connecticut Democrat and have been dissatisfied with Lieberman's performance for his entire career as a Senator. I happen to agree with practically everything in the article. But I cannot call this balanced reporting.