Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

...but 201k has a bad feeling we're being set up for a surprise Lieberman victory tomorrow. His opponent's lead in the polls has inexplicably vanished in the course of a week, and the NY Times is running an Anne Kornblutt report (video, so no link -- sorry) which suggests that because Lieberman "is in such a good mood now...that he will actually be able to turn the tide..."

We're not sure how a candidate's mood was able to knock four points off a polling deficit in 24 hours, but we'll defer to Kornblut, who prior to this report was given the front page of the Times to run a smarmy hit-piece on Hillary Clinton, by way of defending Lieberman by contrast:

There was a time when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's position on the Iraq war seemed to place her in the same political peril afflicting Senator Joseph I. Lieberman.

The senators, both Democrats, voted to authorize the military invasion and both refused to apologize for their votes as the occupation began to falter and opposition to the war swelled. Both were labeled as hawks within Democratic ranks.

But while Mr. Lieberman, his party's vice presidential nominee in 2000, has wound up vulnerable to an antiwar challenger in his re-election race in Connecticut, Mrs. Clinton has suffered few, if any, serious consequences in her campaign in New York.

The reason for this, Kornblut explains, isn't the many substantive ways in which Ms. Clinton's stance on the war differs from Lieberman's -- though Kornblut lists them -- nor to Lieberman's having been the Bush Administration's prize Democratic cheerleader -- a position Lieberman assumed gleefully, going as far as adopting the Administration's rhetoric and vocabulary on the war and its pernicious habit of labeling its critics as soft on terror -- it's due to Clinton's "skillful repositioning and adaptation to changing circumstances."

Ah. And all this time we thought it was because Lieberman spent so much time as the house pro-Bush Democrat on Fox News.

Meanwhile, Lieberman himself is spinning revisionist polling history, claiming in Kornblut's video piece that "we did some polling early on, in different scenarios, which said to me, that this was going to end up a dead heat, and that's exactly what's happened."

They did? He did?

It did?

This is starting to sound a lot like the predictions of the legions of evangelicals that would turn out to push George W. Bush over the edge in the 2004 presidential election -- an election that far more likely turned on the machination of electronic voting machines than on any supposed religious turn-out.

We hope we're wrong. When it comes to cynicism, well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.