I was sorry to learn of the sudden death of 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman. But his long and stormy career did offer some important lessons about party loyalty, which I wrote about at New York:
Joe Lieberman was active in politics right up to the end. The former senator was the founding co-chair of the nonpartisan group No Labels, which is laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign on behalf of a yet-to-be-identified bipartisan “unity ticket.” Lieberman did not live to see whether No Labels will run a candidate. He died on Wednesday at 82 due to complications from a fall. But this last political venture was entirely in keeping with his long career as a self-styled politician of the pragmatic center, which often took him across party boundaries.
Lieberman’s first years in Connecticut Democratic politics as a state legislator and then state attorney general were reasonably conventional. He was known for a particular interest in civil rights and environmental protection, and his identity as an observant Orthodox Jew also drew attention. But in 1988, the Democrat used unconventional tactics in his challenge to Republican U.S. senator Lowell Weicker. Lieberman positioned himself to the incumbent’s right on selected issues, like Ronald Reagan’s military operations against Libya and Grenada. He also capitalized on longtime conservative resentment of his moderate opponent, winning prized endorsements from William F. and James Buckley, icons of the right. Lieberman won the race narrowly in an upset.
Almost immediately, Senator Lieberman became closely associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. The group of mostly moderate elected officials focused on restoring the national political viability of a party that had lost five of the six previous presidential elections; it soon produced a president in Bill Clinton. Lieberman became probably the most systematically pro-Clinton (or in the parlance of the time, “New Democrat”) member of Congress. This gave his 1998 Senate speech condemning the then-president’s behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal as “immoral” and “harmful” a special bite. He probably did Clinton a favor by setting the table for a reprimand that fell short of impeachment and removal, but without question, the narrative was born of Lieberman being disloyal to his party.
Perhaps it was his public scolding of Clinton that convinced Al Gore, who was struggling to separate himself from his boss’s misconduct, to lift Lieberman to the summit of his career. Gore tapped the senator to be his running mate in the 2000 election, making him the first Jewish vice-presidential candidate of a major party. He was by all accounts a disciplined and loyal running mate, at least until that moment during the Florida recount saga when he publicly disclaimed interest in challenging late-arriving overseas military ballots against the advice of the Gore campaign. You could argue plausibly that the ticket would have never been in a position to potentially win the state without Lieberman’s appeal in South Florida to Jewish voters thrilled by his nomination to become vice-president. But many Democrats bitter about the loss blamed Lieberman.
As one of the leaders of the “Clintonian” wing of his party, Lieberman was an early front-runner for the 2004 presidential nomination. A longtime supporter of efforts to topple Saddam Hussein, Lieberman had voted to authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq, like his campaign rivals John Kerry and John Edwards and other notable senators including Hillary Clinton. Unlike most other Democrats, though, Lieberman did not back off this position when the Iraq War became a deadly quagmire. Ill-aligned with his party to an extent he did not seem to perceive, his presidential campaign quickly flamed out, but not before he gained enduring mockery for claiming “Joe-mentum” from a fifth-place finish in New Hampshire.
Returning to the Senate, Lieberman continued his increasingly lonely support for the Iraq War (alongside other heresies to liberalism, such as his support for private-school education vouchers in the District of Columbia). In 2006, Lieberman drew a wealthy primary challenger, Ned Lamont, who soon had a large antiwar following in Connecticut and nationally. As the campaign grew heated, President George W. Bush gave his Democratic war ally a deadly gift by embracing him and kissing his cheek after the State of the Union Address. This moment, memorialized as “The Kiss,” became central to the Lamont campaign’s claim that Lieberman had left his party behind, and the challenger narrowly won the primary. However, Lieberman ran against him in the general election as an independent, with significant back-channel encouragement from the Bush White House (which helped prevent any strong Republican candidacy). Lieberman won a fourth and final term in the Senate with mostly GOP and independent votes. He was publicly endorsed by Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, among others from what had been the enemy camp.
The 2006 repudiation by his party appeared to break something in Lieberman. This once-happiest of happy political warriors, incapable of holding a grudge, seemed bitter, or at the very least gravely offended, even as he remained in the Senate Democratic Caucus (albeit as formally independent). When his old friend and Iraq War ally John McCain ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, Lieberman committed a partisan sin by endorsing him. His positioning between the two parties, however, still cost him dearly: McCain wanted to choose him as his running mate, before the Arizonan’s staff convinced him that Lieberman’s longtime pro-choice views and support for LGBTQ rights would lead to a convention revolt. The GOP nominee instead went with a different “high-risk, high-reward” choice: Sarah Palin.
After Barack Obama’s victory over Lieberman’s candidate, the new Democratic president needed every Democratic senator to enact the centerpiece of his agenda, the Affordable Care Act. He got Lieberman’s vote — but only after the senator, who represented many of the country’s major private-insurance companies, forced the elimination of the “public option” in the new system. It was a bitter pill for many progressives, who favored a more robust government role in health insurance than Obama had proposed.
By the time Lieberman chose to retire from the Senate in 2012, he was very near to being a man without a party, and he reflected that status by refusing to endorse either Obama or Mitt Romney that year. By then, he was already involved in the last great project of his political career, No Labels. He did, with some hesitation, endorse Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016. But his long odyssey away from the yoke of the Democratic Party had largely landed him in a nonpartisan limbo. Right up until his death, he was often the public face of No Labels, particularly after the group’s decision to sponsor a presidential ticket alienated many early supporters of its more quotidian efforts to encourage bipartisan “problem-solving” in Congress.
Some will view Lieberman as a victim of partisan polarization, and others as an anachronistic member of a pro-corporate, pro-war bipartisan elite who made polarization necessary. Personally, I will remember him as a politician who followed — sometimes courageously, sometimes foolishly — a path that made him blind to the singular extremism that one party has exhibited throughout the 21st century, a development he tried to ignore to his eventual marginalization. But for all his flaws, I have no doubt Joe Lieberman remained until his last breath committed to the task he often cited via the Hebrew term tikkun olam: repairing a broken world.
THE BOOK “THE COLDEST WINTER EVER” WAS HOT, I’M NOT GONE HATE…BUT AFTER READING THE BOOK ONLY TWICE, A FUNNY VIBE SPARKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER SISTA SOULJAH HERSELF DIDN’T KNOW WINTER SANTIAGA (CHARACTER IN THE BOOK) OR EVEN IF SHE EVER EXSIST OR NOT SOUNDS CHILDISH… HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YALL THINK.
Please don’t use the phrase “national security street cred” again. Ever.
Thank you.
Great blog, by the way.
Let’s not get hung up on names. I don’t think the Democrats should focus on independents, moderates, liberals or conservatives. They should focus on the average guy who is not rich and not benefiting from Bush’s tax cuts.
John Edwards has it right. There are 2 Americas: the rich and the rest of us. Bush serves the rich. Kerry will serve the rest of us.
The biggest problem for Kerry and the Democrats is the negative advertisements sure to be thrown at us. Every slur, every lie must be answered. And I think we should do this respectfully. The Democrats should not get into the gutter with the Republicans. Such a strategy will eventually show the population the BIG difference between the 2 parties.
attack: massachsetts liberal.
response: when that viet cong who wounded me caught me in his sites he didn’t say “i’ll let this one go becasue he is from massachusetts and a liberal.”
Our enemies don’t make these distinctions and neither should we.
Additionally about the Massachusetts Liberal label, the early history of Massachusetts is U.S. history. John Addams wrote the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. which in turn was used as a pattern for the Constitution of the U.S.
Further to Mark Alan’s excellent defense of the Massachusetts Liberal label , how about this:
“I’m proud to be from the bithplace of such great Americans as Paul Revere, John F. Kennedy, and George Herbert Walker Bush. ”
Paul C, I’m not sure what it says about our society but I think your observations about the guy who would “get the girl” winning our recent presidential elections are on the mark.
Bruce Reed has what I think is a funny and perceptive (albeit self-serving) piece on “wonks and hacks” in the current issue of The Washington Monthly magazine.
Paul C, I’m not sure what it says about our society but I think your observations about the guy who would “get the girl” winning our recent presidential elections are on the mark.
Bruce Reed has what I think is a funny and perceptive piece on “wonks and hacks” in the current issue of The Washington Monthly magazine.
I have been thinking about something similar to what Bob H just said. If you look at the presidential elections of the past 40 or so years, the guy with the most “sex appeal” has won almost every one. Not necessarily the most macho, but the most vital. Look at the match-ups and decide who would play the leading man and “get the girl” at the end of the movie. Reagan or Carter? Reagan or Mondale??? It is almost unbelievable that GHW Bush could find someone with less sex appeal, but he did, in Mike Dukakis. Clinton/Bush and Clinton/Dole were no contest. Al Gore almost pulled it out with “the kiss,” but then he reverted to his wonky form.
Kerry can easily top Bush, if he keeps up certain themes and practices. His war hero record and “I know something about aircraft carriers for real” is a great start. His distainful talk about W as the pretend Marlboro Man helps also. Drip by drip, the portrait of W as the effite son of a priviledged family really helps. Kerry may be rich also, but he served in the war rather than getting Daddy to get him into the guard (forget whether he actually served, all of us who lived through that era know what the deal was with the Guard at that time). Kerry may have gone to an elite prep school, but he played hockey there, while W was a cheerleader. The Harley may have been over-contrived, but the idea is right. Theresa can be a great help, if she continues to gaze at John with pride and admiration, like Nancy Reagan used to do. Laura Bush, who may well be a nice lady, has never really connected with the public.
Vigor and vitality, along with judgment and trustworthyness, should be main themes. We can win with them.
Paul
I just sent in the first of what I hope will be many contributions to the cause. I would like to make a superficial observation:
Before they even open their mouths, Kerry and Edwards present an image of fighting vigor, physical attractiveness, youthfulness, and optimism. Compare the increasingly haggard and drawn president, the angioplastic VP. The Dem team looks the part. Such things are important-look at California!
$100 revolution? Try $100 status quo. Astoundingly, we small donors are not the Party’s mad money ATM machine, where they can rack up the cash while selling access to the big bucks.
You want the money? Start fixing the crooked system.
Link is to the intelletually honest William Saletan’s look at yesterday’s data on the independent and Republican vote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096505
as a long time kerry supporter, I am very glad to see all of us coalesing around him, times will be rough b4 election day but we must stick together and get these clowns out of the white house. donated before and will donate money and time again.
I think many are seized by the same instinct–the first thing I did this morning was logon and give Kerry my hundred bucks. But I think the challenge should be higher–don’t simply give $100 but give whatever you can, whenever you can. I intend to make another contribution next month, and the month after, etc. so long as I have money to give. Just like paying the gas bill.
I’ve been having a lot of drinks with a lot of different democrats over the last few days, and I don’t know any who aren’t falling in with Kerry now that he is the nominee. Even the Kucinich voters are planning on turning out for Kerry. The only people I’ve spoken to who DON’T plan on voting for Kerry are the Republicans and the black-helicopter new-world-order people. And the latter probably aren’t as numerous in the population as they are in my drinking circles.
I was a Dean supporter who switched to Edwards in the last few weeks. I just donated to the Kerry campaign and will do all that I can to help him win (I also ordered two free bumper stickers from his website). I hope everyone else like me is doing the same.
> Does he need a Sista Souljah moment?
Doesn’t Nader’s candidacy already provide this?
Does he need a Sista Souljah moment? What should be the target?
He should try to neutralize the liberal tagging coming his way soon. Not sure how.
And yes, donate. (click on name.)
On your suggestion, I just donated to the Kerry campaign. Thanks.