Lieberman, speaking to reporters after an address at the Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce, said he is fed up with what he sees as "rigid partisanship" on multiple issues facing the country, not just the war in Iraq.
"Washington has become much too partisan and that partisanship gets in the way of doing the job that you send us to do," Lieberman said. "I feel Mr. Lamont, in Washington, would add to the polarization."
He dismissed a question about whether he is taking a political risk by touting his bipartisanship less than two months before the Aug. 8 primary, as critics claim he is too cozy with President Bush and too supportive of the war.
"I'm telling the truth," he said. "Whether it's risky or not, I don't know." (AP)
Of course it's risky, especially when he's been attacking Lamont for not being partisan enough:
Lamont, a Greenwich businessman who has put more than $1.5 million of his own money into his primary campaign, said he's confused about why Lieberman accuses him of being too partisan, but is running television ads attacking Lamont for being too supportive of Republicans. (AP)
Of all of the accusations Lieberman has made against Lamont, this is the one with the most potential to do damage. Many voters are sick of partisanship.
Of course, one breed of voter who isn't sick of that partisanship is the likely Democratic primary voter. Many hard-core Democrats wish that Lieberman had been more partisan on the issues that matter to them. What he sees as compromise, they see as capitulation.
Still, it's the first smart attack Lieberman has made in this campaign. At least it isn't petulant, vicious or an unbelievable exaggeration or distortion. Lamont will be more partisan than Lieberman. But that's also his strength.
"Lieberman touts bipartisanship, says Lamont would be polarizing." Associated Press 20 June, 2006.