After hearing Mark Schmitt talk about how Joe Lieberman has "virtually ensured his defeat in the primary" and getting a tip from Petey, I bet some money on Ned Lamont, with the hope of tripling it if he's nominated. The next day, polls showed Lamont with a slight lead, while Bill Clinton announced that he'd be coming to campaign by Lieberman's side. The market took the news as good for Lamont, overall, as it probably should have. Lamont's people will turn out in strength, and if he's ahead in the polls, he's got an advantage that even Bill can't erase.
I don't know if John Edwards is a gambler, but if he is, there's one heck of a wager open to him in Connecticut. (And unlike Alan Schlesinger, he can make it under his real name!) By stumping for Ned Lamont before the primary ends, Edwards would make it a race between Hillary's hawk and Johnny's dove. A Lamont victory is bad for Hillary 2008 -- it raises doubts about whether unapologetic pro-war candidates can win Democratic primaries, and that may be why Bill is taking a trip to the Nutmeg State. But for Edwards to actually appear beside Lamont, with Clinton beside Lieberman, would make this dynamic unmistakable to the keepers of conventional wisdom.
