In Round III of his dispute with Jon Chait, Jamie writes:
Lieberman won re-election in 2006 with a 10% margin. The Daily Kos-commissioned poll cuts that margin in half. So while the difference between Lieberman's 50%-40% share of the electorate and the poll's 48%-43% sample may fall within the statistical margin of error, the poll is nonetheless weighted in favor of Lamont.
Not quite. To add to what Jon said earlier, you would expect Connecticut voters disappointed with Lieberman to say that they voted for Lamont. This always happens with unpopular incumbents. In no way is the poll weighted in favor of Lamont--or, rather, we have no evidence that it is.
Jamie also adds:
If Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee were the nominee, Joe Lieberman would not be on the ramparts. He is supporting McCain because he is his friend--and because he believes him to be the best candidate.
I'm confused. Mitt Romney also supports "victory" in Iraq, which according to Joe Lieberman is the issue that matters above all else. Why wouldn't Lieberman support Romney if he were the nominee? Surely Jamie is not arguing that Lieberman is placing friendship ahead of defeat for America (i.e. only supporting the strong terror warrior who Lieberman is friend's with).
Finally, Jamie notes:
Obama talks about bipartisanship. And so I find it ironic that his supporters -- who tout this talk and his ability to "transcend" this, that, and the other -- would denigrate the one guy who's actually endorsed someone from the other party.
Where is the irony? According to this line of argument, Zell Miller is the ideal of bipartisanship because he's a Democrat who smears other Democrats and lauds Republicans. Obviously Obama, and his supporters, are not using this definition of bipartisanship. Perhaps if Obama called McCain a Marxist that would be the true expression of reaching across the aisle.