What's going on is that Democrats and their pollsters have sent the message that their side is on the ascendency, that the tide has turned irreversibly against Bush. They now feel free to express their pent up rage, which has been simmering since 2000. The Lamont-Lieberman race is an interesting metric of their sentiments, especially against the backdrop of the War on Hizbollah.

The problem is that Dems have been in this very same position before, with a nominal advantage and a hefty critique to dispatch at all Republicans and sympathizers. And yet history shows that they cannot be counted on to hold onto their leads. They botch it at the last minute by failing to inspire confidence in their leadership abilities - usually with a clumsy phrase or milquetoast selection of issues.

I predict that Lamont, if he wins today, ends up representing the high water mark of Democrat revolutionism. He's a disappointment - not even Howard Dean's level of charisma - and he won't add sway to the anti-war or even anti-incumbent tone. Contra Dem logic, power remains in Republican hands. And Dems just get angrier and louder, ensuring their defeat in 2008.