The five U.S. Senate hopefuls in Connecticut take part in a 5-way debate in Hartford, Conn., Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2006. From left are : Concerned Citizens Party candidate Timothy Knibbs; Green Party Candidate Ralph Ferrucci; Incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is running as an independent; Republican Alan Schlesinger; Democratic party-endorsed candidate Ned Lamont. (AP Photo/Bob Child, Pool)

5-way Senatorial debate in Connecticut:
Hartford Courant: "After a news blackout of 27 hours, WFSB plans to show the canned one-hour event Thursday at 7 p.m."
Updated: I can't find permalinks, but the two-part debate is here, for now at least.

The debate has been "liberated," however, and can be seen in six parts here at YouTube. And here's audio, courtesy of ConnecticutBLOG.

Connecticut Senatorial candidates

Alan Schlesinger Republican

Joseph I. Lieberman Connecticut for Lieberman

Ned Lamont Democrat

Ralph A. Ferrucci Green Party

Timothy A. Knibbs Concerned Citizens Party Of Connecticut

The New York Times (Lieberman’s Iraq Stance Draws Fire in Debate) captures some of the flavor:

“We cannot and will not stay in Iraq forever,” he (Sen. Joe Lieberman) said. “My commitment to Iraq is not indefinite or unconditional. We need to stay there as long as there is a reasonable prospect with our help of building a free and independent Iraq, which will be a whole different path in the Arab world.” As he went on, Mr. Lieberman was cut short after his time ran out and Mr. Schlesinger (Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger) responded sharply:

“You see this is what happens when you spend six years running for president and vice president of the United States, you begin to believe you are actually in the executive branch of the government.”

When Mr. Lieberman repeated his recent call to replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Mr. Knibbs (Timothy Knibbs, the Concerned Citizens Party candidate) took a jab, suggesting it was because the senator had been on the “short list” to replace him.

But liberal blogger Matt Stoller, writing Debate Train to Crazy Town at Huffington Post (mirrored at Yahoo News), captures the truly surreal moments here in living color -- with video.

He begins,

You know you're in an incredible political environment when you're at an event where egomaniac Ralph Nader is wandering around, and not only is no one paying attention to him, but Ralph Nader himself doesn't even expect anyone to pay attention to him. That was the scene earlier today in Hartford, CT, where five candidates went at each other, or mostly at Joe Lieberman, for the Senate nomination in a debate. I wasn't feeling so good about this race a few weeks ago; it had stagnated, and the polling reflected that and will still reflect that for a week or so. Today, I think there was a decisive shift both in the dynamic of the race and in the tone of the political environment.

It's not that Lamont has overperformed, or that Joe has melted down, it's that Connecticut Election 2006 has gone off the deep end. It's not your normal white picket fence suburban election, with attack ad facing attack ad. No, this is more like a white picket fence election that suddenly gets bored with life and decides to live in the forest, take a bunch of LSD, trout-fish naked, and taunt a bear cub before ending its life suddenly and with total and inexplicable resolution on November 7. Well not really, but there's no analogy that I can think of summarizing what's going on. What has happened is that Joe Lieberman competed in a Democratic primary, lost, and is now competing in a Republican primary, and is losing again. Meanwhile, Lamont is finally picking up renewed steam and getting back on track as a candidate. There's energy here, real energy. ...

Connecticut has choices.

Habeas corpus suspended:

"...it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration.... freedom of the person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected..." -- Thomas Jefferson: First Inaugural Address

New York Times editorial (A Dangerous New Order):

Once President Bush signed the new law on military tribunals, administration officials and Republican leaders in Congress wasted no time giving Americans a taste of the new order created by this unconstitutional act.

Within hours, Justice Department lawyers notified the federal courts that they no longer had the authority to hear pending lawsuits filed by attorneys on behalf of inmates of the penal camp at Guantánamo Bay. They cited passages in the bill that suspend the fundamental principle of habeas corpus, making Mr. Bush the first president since the Civil War to take that undemocratic step....

Denver Post editorial: Detainee bill a step backwards:

The legislation signed by President Bush providing for trial of suspected terrorists by special military tribunals should be challenged in court, and the sooner the better.

Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 law in a fit of pre-election cowardice, three months after the U.S. Supreme Court found that the administration was violating protections in U.S. and international law. The new law gives the president broad powers to "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment.

That's bad enough, but the new law also allows the indefinite detention of scores of detainees. It allows hearsay evidence during trial and prohibits detainees from having their cases reviewed in a U.S. court, a fundamental protection of U.S. law.

Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: 'Beginning of the end of America': Olbermann addresses the Military Commissions Act in a special comment. Transcript and video at MSNBC (one page transcript) . Mirrored, with other video choices, at Crook and Liars.

...And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant" — exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to help you?...

Yes, anyone can not be "disappeared" at the pleasure of the President. This abrogation of the most basic right to challenge the legality of your detention is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court must overturn it.

How did America come to this point, where we watch a most basic human freedom be dismantled by something innocuously called a Military Commissions Act? The terrorists did not do this to us. Our own President has done this, with the acquiescence of a Congress that does not challenge him:

Senate Approves Detainee Bill Backed by Bush -- (The Senate vote)
House Approves Bill on Detainees -- (The House vote)

Americans have a chance to change this Congress at the polls Nov. 7.

Riverbend returns. The pseudonymous female blogger in Iraq (Baghdad Burning) makes her first post since Aug. 5:

The Lancet Study... This has been the longest time I have been away from blogging. There were several reasons for my disappearance the major one being the fact that every time I felt the urge to write about Iraq, about the situation, I'd be filled with a certain hopelessness that can't be put into words and that I suspect other Iraqis feel also.

It's very difficult at this point to connect to the internet and try to read the articles written by so-called specialists and analysts and politicians. They write about and discuss Iraq as I might write about the Ivory Coast or Cambodia- with a detachment and lack of sentiment that- I suppose- is meant to be impartial. Hearing American politicians is even worse. They fall between idiots like Bush- constantly and totally in denial, and opportunists who want to use the war and ensuing chaos to promote themselves. ...