My evidence for this?
The (Republican) White House had the time and inclination to issue a press release blasting Connecticut Democrats for rejecting Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary:
he White House accused the Democratic Party on Wednesday of catering to the extreme left after Connecticut voters defeated Sen. Joe Lieberman in a primary election over his support of the Iraq war.
"I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party, they're going to come after you," [Tony Snow] said.
Forget for a second the absurdity of the quoted line (national leaders of the Democratic Party didn't "come after" Senator Lieberman until he declared his willingness to disregard the will of Connecticut Democrats and the "extreme left" seems to agree with 60% of America on the defining issue of the campaign). I'm just glad that they managed to get everything done above "comment on the Connecticut primary" on the old To-Do list...
Update: From Ken Krayeske in the comments:
Today's White House Press Briefing:
One of the interesting things that happened in this Connecticut race, by the way, was there appeared to be some buyer's remorse as election day approached. Maybe the polls were rigged; maybe the polls were bad. But at least the lead that Mr. Lamont had went from 13 points to six to four on election day. That indicates that even in a fairly liberal state like Connecticut, where this is the one issue, where you had a well-financed candidate who had more money than the incumbent, that you still had a 50-50 split more or less within the Democratic Party on this issue.
Ken hits both points right on target:
1. Tony Snow is either claiming that the drop in Lamont's support in the Q-Poll from 13 to 6 in a week represents buyer's remorse or that the Q-Poll is rigged. Either view is utterly unsupported by evidence (the Q-Poll is rigged? Projection much? Also, rarely will campaigns rig a poll so that it appears that they lost half their support in a week. Its absurd on its face.). The evidence supports the proposition that the 13 point poll is an outlier. The 6 point poll is more reflective of what the Lamont campaign's internals showed (no link, it was told to me verbally).
2. While Lamont was well-financed for a challenger of an 18 year incumbent in a primary, to say that he had more money than Lieberman is laughable. As of about a week before the primary (final numbers are not yet available), Lieberman had out raised Lamont by a factor of 2-1. By Tony Snow's standards, I have more money than Bill Gates. If he says it from the podium, it must be true.