Their reasoning? As near as I can tell it boils down to the fact that Ned Lamont is not Joe Lieberman. For the Times, it seems as though this isn't so much about supporting Lamont as it is about withdrawing support for Lieberman.

Seriously, Lamont is mentioned in exactly two paragraphs. The rest is all bashing Lieberman for not being Howard Dean and attacking the Bush administration at every opportunity.

Here's the best the Times can come up with for praise for Lamont:

Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately.

He "seems smart and moderate." And he's not inclined to agree with icky Bush on anything, which is the real point.

That's great. Wonderful that the Times has such high standards for endorsing politicians.