The paper that picked Lieberman as their choice in the primary, picks Lamont for Senate. Rarely do I post an article in full but this is a must read.

For months now, Joseph Lieberman has been running hard to keep his appointment with the voters on Tuesday.

He didn't expect it to be this way. The three-term senator, vice presidential and presidential candidate expected an easy re-election to a fourth term in the U.S. Senate.

But the war in Iraq and Ned Lamont, a Greenwich businessman, got in the way.

Lamont challenged Lieberman for the Democratic nomination and won the party primary in August.

Lieberman then decided to run a campaign as a petitioning candidate, gathering voters' signatures to obtain a place on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Lamont and Lieberman are joined on the ballot by Republican Alan Schlesinger. His party nominated him but has not supported him. Schlesinger has run an energetic campaign on a shoestring.

Public opinion polls show strong voter sentiment across the nation that Washington isn't working and change is needed. Concern about President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq is a big part of that unrest.

Connecticut got a head start on that conversation this summer during the primary campaign for U.S. Senate. While Lieberman's struggles shocked the Washington establishment -- and Lieberman himself -- criticism at home had been building for years.

As he pursued his national political ambitions, Lieberman too often ignored Connecticut. He also pursued policies that left longtime supporters on the sidelines, wondering about his judgment.

His insistence, for example, that Congress should meddle in a family dispute involving Terri Schiavo, a woman who doctors said was in a vegetative state, was disappointing.

His unquestioning support of Bush administration policies on Iraq, even as American military casualties mounted and Iraq spiraled out of control toward civil war, was a failure of duty and he should be held accountable.

It took the Lamont challenge to get Lieberman back to Connecticut to explain some of the choices he has made in Washington.

During the primary, Lieberman sounded like a man who was ready to finally exercise his responsibilities of congressional oversight on Iraq.

But as a petitioning candidate this fall, he has returned to largely unquestioning support of the Bush war policies.

The News-Times Editorial Board has twice endorsed Lieberman for election to the Senate, citing his experience, intelligence and hard work. The Editorial Board also endorsed Lieberman in the August primary. After he lost, the Editorial Board suggested he withdraw from the campaign.

In Tuesday's election, the Editorial Board endorses Ned Lamont.

From the start of his campaign, Lamont has been a confident candidate, sure of his message as an outsider, not intimidated by Lieberman's long experience in government.

Lieberman dismisses Lamont as someone who wouldn't be able to match his presence in the Senate. Lieberman summons the same attitude toward voters who disagree with him on the war.

The problem for Lieberman is that all of his experience, all of his knowledge, didn't help him recognize what the Bush war policies were doing and now American military personnel are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

If the most experienced members of Congress didn't exercise oversight responsibilities on Iraq, have they really earned re-election?

If elected, Lamont will have to learn the ways of Washington. But Washington would benefit from having new people who ask questions, who wonder why "business as usual" can't be challenged and changed.

Lamont served in town office in Greenwich and is a successful businessman. He has a social conscience that motivated him to do more than just make a donation to help poor students; he volunteered to teach a class of Bridgeport teenagers about business.

In a year when the voters must impose change on Washington, Ned Lamont is the better choice.

Amen.