Observing Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman last week, Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee must have gotten nervous. After all, if Ned Lamont -- a man who six months ago was a statistical asterisk could oust a sitting U.S. Senator -- then maybe Chafee was in more danger than he thought.

Late Tuesday night, one imagines, Chafee had a long meeting with his strategists. "What happened to Joe," he might have asked? "What should we do?" Being typical strategists, they no doubt gave an explanation that ended with the words: "Go negative!"

... At least, that's the way it goes in my head. And based on Chafee's new TV ad, something has made him decide to go on the offensive. This weekend, The Providence Journal reported that the ad would soon air:

Cast by Laffey's spokeswoman as an example of "the ultimate mudslinging ad campaign," the commercial says Laffey "taunted" Cranston firefighters and "mocked" a Cranston woman who questioned his midyear tax increase. The ad calls Laffey "the wrong voice for Rhode Island in the Senate."

Is Ned Lamont's victory a harbinger for Rhode Island? It's hard to say. There are similarities and differences.

Obviously, both races have drawn national attention. Both Chafee and Lieberman are sitting U.S. Senators from New England. Both are also philosophically outside the mainstream of their party orthodoxy. In terms of the challengers, both Lamont and Laffey are younger and "hipper" than the incumbents. And both are supported by national groups that seek to purify their party (Lamont was supported by the liberal bloggosphere, while Laffey has been supported by conservative groups, such as the Club for Growth).

And then, there are the differences. Joe Lieberman is convivial. Chafee is not. Lieberman is closer to his party's ideology than is Chafee. And on the challenger side, there are differences, too; Laffey is a Mayor while Lamont is a millionaire businessman. ... But perhaps most importantly, the hot-button issue of the Iraq war will likely not play as significant a role in determining the outcome of the Chafee/Laffey race.

So ultimately, the question of whether or not Lieberman's loss spells trouble for Chafee depends on how you interpret Lamont's victory.

If you believe Lamont's victory was about Iraq, then there probably is no need for Chafee to worry. But if you believe that Lamont's victory was about more than Iraq -- that it was about "change" -- that it was about being ideologically pure -- or that it was simply an anti-incumbent thing -- then maybe there is room to worry. As previously stated, Chafee is more out-of-touch with his party than Lieberman was.

With the election right around the corner, you can bet the Chafee and Laffey campaigns are pouring over polling data. Clearly, Chafee saw something, last week, that troubled him. You don't attack somebody who isn't a threat. ... Something's brewing in Rhode Island.