Supporting Ned Lamont means more than cutting checks for him or making public endorsements. It also means defending him against scurrilous attacks that, by their very nature, smear you just as bad as they do him. When the attacks come from a fellow Democrat it is even more important to respond because, left unrefuted, those attacks support the Republican narrative for the coming election.
Lieberman's campaign is a campaign against the entire Democratic party. He is and will continue to use the party as his whipping boy in order to achieve his selfish goals. Will Democratic leaders who have nominally endorsed Lamont give him real support by fighting back against Lieberman?
Colin McEnroe has doubts.
On a lesser and more devilish note, what do you suppose all the "unity" Democrats, starting with Chris Dodd, ought to do or say about Lieberman's remarks from yesterday (see below)? The senator is obviously wrong and out of line. His statement suggests he intends to run as a Cheneyist against his Democratic opponent. He has handed the Democrats an unsought and probably unwelcome opportunity to show us what they mean when they say they will support Lamont. Ordinarily, it would entail calling Lieberman's bluff. Will they? I say no.
The longer Democrats leave Lieberman to push his "vote for me because my party is bad for America" line without fighting back, the harder it will be for them to push their narrative. Obviously they don't want to hit their "good friend", but real friends are those who are willing to tell you when you are being an idiot.