NED LAMONT’S CONCESSION SPEECH: At the Huffington Post.

UPDATE: Reader Fred LaSor emails:

I read Huffington’s draft of Lamont’s concession speech with growing incredulity: the drafter(s) say Lamont should run on speaking out for what he believes in, not what the pollsters advise him to say. If CT’s voters want a senator who says what he believes, the choice is evident: Lieberman. There’s a candidate who tells it like it is — so his party abandons him. Who’s fooling whom?

And does this mean that so far Lamont has been just a tool of his campaign consultants? Does that explain why he’s polling so badly? That’s pretty damning, isn’t it?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ouch: “The nutroots do indeed feel double-crossed by Lamont, not because he’s doing as every candidate does late in the campaign by moving to the center, but because he is losing. . . . The only one who has been double-crossed is Ned Lamont.”

NORTH KOREA NUKE UPDATE:

The United States reported Monday that radiation-detecting aircraft had confirmed that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test a week ago.

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte’s office said in a statement that airborne sensors last Wednesday detected “radioactive debris,” confirming that a nuclear test took place near P’unggye, in northeastern North Korea. “The explosion yield was less than a kiloton,” it added.

Sounds like a fizzle. I dare Kim Jong Il to test another one!

MORE HARRY REID NEWS:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium. Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use.

Questioned about the campaign expenditures by The Associated Press, Reid’s office said Monday he was personally reimbursing his campaign for $3,300 in donations he had directed to the staff holiday fund at his residence.

Pretty small potatoes, but it can’t be a welcome development.

BUSH HAS signed the anti-firearms-confiscation bill, according to David Hardy.

K.C. JOHNSON has more on the unravelling Duke rape case. “Unless laws of time, space, and motion do not apply in Durham, the three people charged are innocent.”

Plus, “The Nifong Usurpation.” Sounds like a Ludlum title.

UPDATE: More from LaShawn Barber.

WHAT HATH CAPT. ED WROUGHT? “Breaking news: Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to file amended ethics reports over land deal highlighted by Associated Press story, his office says.”

Okay, it was really AP.

IRAQ BODY COUNT, often criticized for offering inflated civilian death figures, is now criticizing the Lancet study for offering inflated civilian death figures.

HMM: “THE Chinese are openly debating ‘regime change’ in Pyongyang after last week’s nuclear test by their confrontational neighbour.”

A VIDEO from Iran’s arrested Ayatollah, Seyyed Husayn Borujerdi,the Shia Ayatollah who supports separation of church and state.

THE DEFINITIVE Iraq war op-ed, by Frank J. Fleming.

REMEMBER WHEN JOURNALISTS SPECIALIZED IN TELLING US THINGS instead of keeping secrets? “BBC mounts court fight to keep ‘critical’ report secret.”

JIM GERAGHTY RESPONDS to my GOP pre-mortem. “The good news is, it’s very clear that 2005-2006 style Republican leadership is destined for the – well, forget being put out to pasture, let’s talk glue factory.”

UPDATE: I didn’t hear it, but according to reader email Rush Limbaugh singled out my pre-mortem post for criticism today.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Transcript and audio are available here, but I think only until tomorrow night. Excerpt:

The term GOP premortem, I don’t know who used it first, but a couple of other bloggers and stuff just think it’s cool and they’re all slapped — not all, two or three of them slapped it up. They think it’s really cool. One of them is I know is Glenn Reynolds. What’s his place? Instant Pundit? I’m not sure, but here’s his analysis: “If the GOP Goes Down, It’s Because It Had It Coming.” Once again, let me ask: if the Republicans win, is it because they had it coming? What kind of a fool reason is it to suggest that if the Republicans lose, it’s because they had it coming? Do Democrats have nothing coming? Why is it that we still can’t focus on, beyond me and the USA Today columnist who picked up this thread, why is it that we can’t focus on what happens to the Democrats if they lose?

Well, in the post Limbaugh links, I answer that first question:

I think it’s silly to pretend that the GOP isn’t in trouble — just look at the futures markets, as WindyPundit has. And if they do somehow squeak out a victory, it won’t be because they’ve been doing well all along. As WindyPundit says, “Certainly they haven’t delivered much of what they promised.” . . . But as I say above, even if they win, they need to learn from their mistakes. A last-minute win after four quarters of dropped balls doesn’t mean that the balls weren’t dropped.

But read the whole thing.

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: “With Mark Warner out of the 2008 Demstakes, the chief anti-Hillary centrist is Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana. This is a depressing commentary on the state of the Democratic Party. Bayh may have cleared his schedule to woo Warner supporters on Thursday. But he has yet to prove himself a real contender — and he may not be a real centrist, either.”

I liked Warner, but I don’t know much about Bayh yet.

TRYING TO INTIMIDATE A BLOGGER: This generally backfires.

THE INSTA-DAUGHTER is recovering nicely, and is somewhat groggily reading a novel. Thanks for the nice emails.

HOSPIBLOGGING: At Children’s Hospital, where the Insta-Daughter is in for some tests. Back later. In my absence, you can amuse yourself with this online Ford/Corker debate from Business TN magazine. Ignore the popup box asking for registration; it’s not required.

Also, Capt. Ed has a column in the Post looking at the Harry Reid land deal scandal.