Under normal circumstances, such an obvious, out-and-out lie like Lamont's comment "I don't know anything about the blogs" would damage a candidate. This time, probably not so much. Nevertheless, it's interesting to see Lamont throw the crazies who've essentially made his campaign under the bus so quickly when their antics put some heat on him.

Let me also step back for a minute to talk about the Lieberman flyer that started this whole thing, sent the nutroots into a rage and eventually led to Hamsher's blackface graphic fiasco. You can see the flyer here (you should read the full post because the blogger's outrage is also instructive).

The front side of the flyer shows the picture of Clinton and Lieberman to which Hamsher added her "progressive stylings" and also bullet points detailing Lieberman's record on civil rights. The back side of the flyer asks the question, "What Is Ned Lamont's Civil Rights Record?' and then quotes two paragraphs from a New York Times article on Lamont's recent decision to resign his longtime membership at the nearly all white Round Hill Country Club in Greenwich.

Why quoting a New York Times article is considered a "racist smear" against Lamont is beyond me. As far as campaign tactics go, this isn't even PG-rated. Putting out a targeted piece asking African-American voters to take a good hard look at Lamont's record on civil rights issues seems completely fair. Lord knows if Joe Lieberman belonged to a white-bread Greenwich country club for more than a decade and then resigned weeks before a tough primary election to try and woo black voters, the progressive left would go nuts - even more nuts than they already are - against him. (It's not even worth mentioning what the left would do to a Republican who did what Lamont has done, and whether they'd consider a flyer quoting the NYT to be a "racist" campaign tactic).