New Haven Independent

Lieberman needs the support of two-thirds of the convention’s delegates to win the statewide endorsement. The Lamont campaign — whose only major union endorsements have come from teachers — are hoping to keep Lieberman below that threshold.

Lieberman has picked up a host of endorsements from individual unions based on favors he’s delivered them over 18 years in the U.S. Senate. The statewide AFL-CIO endorsement matters because it enables the federation to pour its money into the Aug. 8 primary race, and it enables the federation to coordinate individual unions’ work on behalf of Lieberman. Union support is crucial in Democratic primaries.

Olsen has worked hard behind the scenes to deliver the endorsement for Lieberman.

“I took an early look. He had his two-thirds,” Olsen (pictured) said before Lieberman addressed the convention Monday morning. “That’s the early look. People have to be here voting.”

Olsen said that the federation, if it endorses Lieberman, would stick with him even if he loses the primary and runs against the Democrats as an independent in November. “We endorse individuals,” he said. “We don’t endorse the party.”

Lieberman’s appearance before the convention felt like a homecoming. Before, during and after the speech he connected with longtime union activists he’s worked with since his days in the State Senate. Olsen, in introducing him, noted that Lieberman helped labor pass a law 30 years ago requiring collective bargaining for municipal workers in Connecticut.

In his speech, Lieberman repeatedly attacked President Bush and the Republican agenda. He didn’t mention the manifold times he has worked alongside Bush and other conservative Republicans to advance right-wing causes. Instead, he focused on a litany of examples of how he’s delivered for organized labor. He spoke of siding with Yale University workers in their most recent strike. He spoke of fighting budget cuts for the National Labor Relations Board and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. “I stood up” to stop the GOP from gutting prevailing-wage laws in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and collective-bargaining rights at the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of 9/11, he said. He touted his 84 percent lifetime AFL-CIO voting record in the Senate.

Overall, he claimed to be fighting to stop the Bush administration from making “eunuchs” of the American labor movement.

“You and I have become a family,” he told the crowd. “We have been through a lot together… If you fired me now, based on my record, it would be an unfair labor practice.”

Lieberman ran a gauntlet of old friends and supporters as he exited the hall and the hotel. He stopped to answer questions from reporters.

One reporter noted that Lieberman continually refers to Lamont as a “Greenwich” millionaire; the epithet evokes an out-of-touch rich guy. The reporter, the Courant’s Mark Pazniokas, noted that AFL-CIO President Olsen also lives in Greenwich.

“Greenwich just happens to be the place [Lamont]’s from. You’re reading something in to it,” Lieberman claimed.

He was also asked about his argument, in his speech, that labor should endorse him in order to help elect Democratic candidates for governor and U.S. Congress on the November ticket. Then why is he leaving open the option of running as an independent, against a Democrat, if he loses the primary?

“I hope one of the reasons the Democrats will want me on the ticket,” he replied, is that he would more likely help them get elected in November. Lieberman has high ratings among independents and Republicans.

Ned Lamont, by contrast, didn’t have to walk any gauntlets before or after his afternoon speech before the federation, except for reassurances from some supporters that his appearance wasn’t all that bad. Or that there’s always another day.

His appearance was in sharp contrast to his rousing speech in the same Omni ballroom before supporters three weeks ago. This time, it was clear that the room favored Lieberman. Lamont walked through many of the same lines Monday with less passion; he seemed nervous, uncomfortable.

Lamont did elicit a couple of spontaneous outbursts of support when he criticized Wal-mart and embraced universal health care. But in contrast to Lieberman, who described his parents’ working-class roots and his own experience on picket lines, Lamont spoke of being a small businessman who worked alongside his employees. Didn’t have the same oomph.

Similarly, even when he criticized Lieberman, he didn’t always deliver the punch line. He went into some length about the evils of the Bush-Cheney energy bill. He noted that all but one New England Democrat opposed it. He didn’t spell out the fact that Lieberman was that one; it was just assumed that people would know. He got no reaction as a result.

At other times, he ended lines with a pause. A pregnant pause. It took supporters a moment to realize they needed to generate some claps.

“Sen. Lieberman has an 85 percent [AFL-CIO] voting record,” Lamont said. “I respect that. Let’s talk about the other 15 percent, the issues that really count.” Those issues include free-trade agreements. “Joe Lieberman has never seen a trade agreement he doesn’t love,” Lamont said. He said the U.S. should use its market power to negotiate for better environmental and labor protections.

He also took issue with Lieberman’s portrayal of the Iraq War being “only” one issue on which he and many labor people disagree.

“Those that got us into this mess should be held accountable,” Lamont said, mentioning President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Lieberman. “It’s time to bring [the troops] home to the heroes’ welcome they deserve.”

“We spend $250 million a day on Iraq. And we can’t afford universal health care in this country?” he asked.

“There you go!” a supporter called out.

“We can’t invest in clean energy or good jobs?”

Bush Morph

Meanwhile, the Lamont campaign released a new TV commercial Monday which morphs Lieberman into President Bush, both visually and on the Iraq War. Click here to check it out. Register your reactions in the comments section below. How does it compare with Lieberman’s take-outs on Lamont?