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.
Teresa Heinz Kerry has said that she considers herself Latina and African.
>>Huh? Where did you get the idea that Teresa Heinz-Kerry is Hispanic? She was raised the daughter of expats in Mozambique and South Africa. As far as I know, she’s as blue blooded as (both) her husbands.
Posted by ColoDem at March 16, 2004 12:04 PM <<
Are you implying that Hispanics can’t be blue-blooded, wealthy, and white? For your information, there are many Hispanics of European heritage who are as white, if not whiter, than Mr. Kerry. The Portuguese are Hispanics, but then again, Ms. Heinz Kerry isn’t even Portuguese, she’s African!
milli, are you a GOP plant? Could you tell us why we’re better off with 4 more years of Bush?
I suspect Bush is really helping himself and the Republicans by suggesting that the Spanish People in Spain are really very very bad people because they voted for “SOCIALISTS’. Of course they nicely leave out the fact that it twas the Spanish Socialists who put it all together in 1976 when Franco died — and built a modern democracy, negotiated the entry to the EU, (EEOC at the time) signed every Human Rights tresty in sight, and accomodated many of the interests that simmered behind the scenes left over from the Civil War. While I realize most Americans of Hispanic background are not from Spain, it does remain something of the cultural center of the Spanish Speaking World — a position somewhat enhanced by recent Spanish History. Do you think they will move into “Freedom Fries” mode? Will we have little Bourgeois Riots at the local Taco Bell’s? Tonight Denny Hastert has lined the House Republicans up with the grand analysis that the Spanish are just a pitiful bunch of appeasers. That is really a great position to take if you want to seem acceptable to Hispanic Voters.
I noticed the Madrid papers took on Bush the other day for showing disrespect for the dead in the train bombing. Apparently one is expected to wear a black tie when extending condolances, and Bush wor a red, white and blue striped one. I thought the White House had a Protocal Officer who sorted things like this out. I must say laying flowers at the Spanish Embassy is more than our dead troops get from this guy.
I’m a Hispanic woman and you have it all wrong. A an independant I am looking for a leader with conviction and a voice for my “people”, I’m an American first and what I need and what this country needs is a leader that stands for all of us and not someone trying to “hispanicize” his ticket. Kerry lost me last week, he LIED about voting for Helms Burton and was just trying to convince Cubans to vote for him – what a joke. He stands for NOTHING – we’d been better off with Edwards – at least he doesn’t have 20 years of WAFFLING on everything. November is a loss – get used to it – 4 more years of Bush – maybe that’s a good thing considering the options!!!
In the case of Bill Richardson, I think the GOP slime squad was doing some preventive maintenance during his time at DOE. Richardson has been a comer in the Democratic Party for some time and the GOP wanted to eliminate or forestall his elevation to VP candidacy because of his obvious demographic advantages. Remember, they did the same thing with Henry Cisneros.
But I doubt they’ll be able to use the same kind of tactics if he actually becomes a candidate. Not without risking pissing off the Hispanic vote.
Finally, I don’t think there is a worse Cabinet-level job than DOE. No one is going to be able to turn around that bureaucratic culture in two years without a lot of help and DOE hasn’t been a top-level priority since the oil shocks of the 70s.
–Dan
Dear Sara,
Thanks for your very thoughtful response. I should not have said you raised charges–you expressed concerns.
I know nothing about energy policy–maybe others can comment on Richardson’s tenure. But certainly the “GOP slime squad”, as you call it, will go after whomever Kerry chooses. If the worst they can say about Gov. Richardson’s integrity and character is that he arranged a job interview for Ms. Lewinsky at the President’s request, I don’t think that’s the kind of thing that should cause us to turn away from a candidate who may be uniquely positioned to help Democrats win Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and perhaps Florida.
Curtis, some people say Kerry should pick Evan Bayh (former Indiana governor, now a senator) as VP because of Indiana. I think it’s an awful idea. He’s too DLC, too boring.
In raising questions about someone on the VP list, as I have suggested above regarding Richardson, I have not, as Ron Thompson suggested — made charges. I have simply pointed to areas that need to be examined as you mull your choice.
Yea — I understand Richardson was very much of a blindsided bit player in the Monica story. My concern is less with the truth of the matter — more with the potential target quality offered to the GOP slime squad by the choice. I am not in favor of a selection for VP that makes the slime squad’s job easy.
Now as to the Dept of Energy. Look, there is something called the IF Stone rules of investigative Journalism — and one of these is pretty obvious if you think about it. If you want to understand how a principle political actor administers policy — uses the bureaucry to solve problems, and more programs ahead — you drop down about three levels from the subject person, find the people who are really experts in the actual content of programs, and see what kind of tale they tell. You don’t ask them to “judge” someone — you ask for the story, and look for key things that help you assess whether a leader made a program more ahead in a reasonable way, or whether he failed.
So — I’ve looked at various Department of Energy programs over the years that interest me. I am interested in clean-up of the Nuclear waste issues at places such as Hanford, Savannah, Oak Ridge and a number of other sites. (See W.Post series on the N. Kentucky mess for instance) — And I know people who are legislators, members of congress, who have served on regulatory commissions, and I know some scientificly credentialed folk who are sometimes consultants on these matters. And yea, I have asked about departmental leadership, and how that impacts program progress. What I find is that during Richard’s 2 and a half years, the problems with moving programs forward were not solfed.
Was this Richardson’s fault? — well he had the top job, and I expect someone in that position to show some leadership. If people or policy are in the way — the idea of leadership is to move over and/or around them. Gain greater understanding of the problems so as to create a base of support for problem solving and all.
Cleaning up the waste from the Nuclear Industry in the Cold War era is a HUGE issue. From the beginning and up to the mid 70’s, the problem was hidden and ignored and wrapped in official secrecy. Then, mid 70’s onward — we’ve begun to comprehend and calculate the cost of clean up. Done right — it will cost Trillions, and there is absolutely no political advantage in talking about spending zillions for the necessary projects. Anyone who has followed this since the 70’s knows this — and looks at leadership of DOE in these terms. Hazel O’Leary tried to go at the problem sideways — by dealing with the victims of human experimentation and industrial exposure. The idea was — in focusing on the human interest and compensation aspects of it all — to move from those specifics to the much broader matters. (Broader matter being what happens when the Hanford storage dumps break, and the Columbia River is polluted, and we have to say bye bye to Portland Oregon, and all?) So — look at DOE during Richardson’s years in leadership — and find your own people who are mostly technical experts and who know the problems — and ask them if much progress was made in the last couple of years of Clinton’s term. Or — take any other DOE subject area that interests you, and where you’ve done a bit of educating yourself, and apply the IFStone rule of Investigative Journalism — the technical guy a couple levels down can tell you if the programs are moving along at a reasonable pace — or whether monkey wrenches are getting thrown into the gears.
What I believe happened to Richardson at DOE is that the Republican Congress did everything possible to distract attention from real problems. The Win Ho Lee case — bad security at DOE labs and all, and the notion that the Chinese had stolen the latest in bomb designs — that whole long saga was really about distracting from all the enviornmental clean-up missions of DOE. I simply am making the case that Leadership would have been about finding a way to make the Republican strategy and tactics clear — and that didn’t happen.
I hope I have suggested enough history to review.
Remember, these are the same bozos who think American Jews have no political opinions beyond Israel policy and that the women’s vote depends on which candidate is hotter-looking.
Please support a candidate in a swing NM District….
*** MILES NELSON, M.D. for CONGRESS ***
http://www.nelsonfornewmexico.com/
Contribute today. Every dollar counts.
http://www.nelsonfornewmexico.com/
Hey Curtis – I hear Jeb Bush can deliver Florida – but I suppose he’s not on the list, huh.
🙂
I’m not entirely sold on Edwards – if only becuase of the rarity of primary “losers” being selected (Bush I is, I believe the only example – there are a couple farther back)
However – I agree with Dan – or maybe even got a step further – in this Election cycle – an “attack dog” may not be the best thing – one of the things that shot Edwards to the front of the pack in the early primaries was the idea of his positive approach – given how negative this race is going to be – that might be such a change that it would be better than an attack – plenty of other ways to raise issues with this administration than an “attack dog”. Besides – mostanything that breaks up the normal political mode and confuses the rightwing dominated press for a minute is good by me.
What about someone who could deliver a midwestern state or two? Ohio, Indiana?
I would say pick anyone who could deliver Florida, but it appears that such a person doesn’t exist.
Rove wants to get 40% of the Hispanic vote this year. He knows that is all they need to win. And it looks like they are on their way to getting that.
I agree with you all that John Edwards is the best choice. He will really appeal to Latinos because he is from a working family and has worked hard for all he has achieved. In addition, he will appeal to voters across the country, not just in a particular state. He will make it impossible for the Republicans to label Democrats as liberal elitists. Most important, Edwards will appeal to swing voters because he is not perceived as having an ideological agenda or being beholden to special interests. He is inspiring, charming, and likeable-all of which we badly need on the ticket!!!
The conventional wisdom for picking a VP is to find someone who can carry a large swing state or energize an important group. In this vein, Joe Lieberman was critical in pulling CT into the Dem column and swaying Democrats who were tired of 8 years of Clinton.
So I guess that rules out Lieberman, who was the worst attack dog in history.
But I question the idea that Edwards can’t play the “attack dog” role. He brings a recognizable passion to his speeches that would team up with Kerry’s experience. Who cares if he doesn’t go negative if he can reliably draw distinctions with the Republicans. His trial experience provides an ability to seize on opponents weaknesses.
Frankly, the VP candidate is going to give a lot of speeches and interviews and then he’ll have one shot at Cheney. Of all the VP possibilities, and I count myself as a Richardson advocate from way back, I would want Edwards going up against Cheney.
–Dan
Sara,
If you have charges to make about Richardson, could you please be a little more specific than saying that “a couple” of people told you that his brief tenure as Secretary of Energy “was much of a mess”? He didn’t get the job until 1998.
And, yes, he arranged a job interview for Monica Lewinsky at the President’s request. Is the implication that he knew about her relationship to the President? If not, and his boss asked him for a favor, why shouldn’t he do it?
Richardson brings with him several problems. There were lots of issues with regard to how he handled the Dept of Energy — a couple of a-political science types tell me it was much of a mess — and then there is the Monica Connection which could be brought up and discussed 24/7. (He interviewed her for a UN job,) Baggage we don’t need right now.
If Bush disses the Spanish Election — the one that looked pretty “fair” and “well attended” and where they voted on paper, and counted all the ballots — and his best buddy got defeated, I suspect that could boomerang on him in the US with Hispanic voters. And if he will take it, recent events offer Kerry a chance to show respect. I tend to think various modes of showing respect and listening is somewhat more valuable in getting these votes than a VP slot.
It looks like the Dem’s in Colorado will have a Hispanic Senate Candidate. Campaigning with him in that marginal state might show more respect than a spot on the ballot for VP.
I think it’s a vast overstatement to say as Ruy does, that “the GOP Hispanic strategy is in shambles.” Bush got 34% of Hispanic voters in 2000; he’s getting 34% in this poll, with 9% undecided. His strategy has neutralized his losses among a group which might otherwise have been expected to turn more solidly against him, for economic reasons.
It is still very necessary to increase Hispanic support for Democrats: for Kerry in 2004, and for the party in the future. And the best way to do that is to put Bill Richardson on the ticket.
This is very good to know. I was commenting on this a couple of days ago at this site. I hadn’t read the January analysis in the archives.
I hope that these side issues that Bush is using to peel off Hispanic voters continue to fail.
It would be great if the Hispanic vote in Florida can be even more turned towards Kerry. More divergence there would give Kerry an even greater chance to win Florida.
Huh? Where did you get the idea that Teresa Heinz-Kerry is Hispanic? She was raised the daughter of expats in Mozambique and South Africa. As far as I know, she’s as blue blooded as (both) her husbands.
I wonder if Latina Teresa can help Kerry more with hispanics. I hope the campaign is exploiting have a real hispanic very nearly on the ticket.
Support a truly grassroots Senatorial candidate! Georgia Senator Mary Squires is running for Zell Miller’s U.S. Senate seat that he is vacating. We must win this seat for our progressive candidate. She CAN and WILL win this seat but needs your support. Democratic supporters in Georgia and around the nation have begun organizing for Senator Squires because we understand the importance of taking back our U.S. Senate. The Republicans want this seat and have already raised several million dollars to help them get it. Please consider a small contribution today to help win the Senate for REAL democrats. Contribute here: http://www.marysquires.us/contribute.html
Bill R. would be a good veep because he is a good person, not just because he is hispanic. He has impeccable foreign policy credentials and now has executive experience as a governor as well. It is a bonus that he is hispanic, but i would like him even if he spoke spanish like W.
For the record, I think Bill Richardson would make a great choice as VP. I agree with ABB; it could energize turnout among Hispanics. As Democrats, we cannot simply take minority groups for granted. Sure, Hispanics trend strongly towards Democrats, but we can solidify that support in November by aggressively targeting their needs. So far, the Republicans have been far more aggressive about targeting Hispanics. I agree with DR that this strategy hasn’t worked, but don’t forget that Bush only got 35% of the Hispanic vote last time. If he can increase this to around 40%, Rove would be ecstatic.
Btw, as for Richardson not wanting the post, I’d imagine that the whole Democratic Party imploring him to run with Kerry could change his mind.
something’s missing from the analysis, though. the Hispanic strategy, while clearly about Hispanics, is also about the White People Party’s ability to convince its adherents that it’s not, in fact, the white people’s party. whenever a challenge is levied against the GOP’s commitment to Hispanic causes, White People can assuage their guilt and believe, contrary to reason and experience, that something is being done about an issue they pay lip service to.
IOW, I’d be curious to see how the Hispanic strategy played out among white people too.
Not Graham. He’s a bad campaigner, and polls in Florida with him as Kerry’s veep are no different than Kerry alone—ie he gives Kerry nothing. Plus, I think the whole “well, then you win state X because so-and-so is from state X” is out the window after Gore lost Tennesee in 2000.
I’d actually like Richardson, not because he gives you any specific state, but having a Latino on the ticket might energize Latino turnout in general, which has always been the larger Democratic problem with minority groups—they support the Dems, they just don’t go to the polls at the same rates that other groups do.
The problem with this is that Richardson has stated repeatedly that he doesn’t want the veep slot, he’s only been governor 1 year, etc. So he’s out.
I think Edwards would be a good pick. My only concern with him is if he’d be sufficiently attack-dog. As VP, you can’t be Mr. Sunshine all the time.
Kerry probably will not need him, and might do better w/ Graham or Edwards. Arizona is the most radical change from 2000 to 2004. Arizona (based on recent polls) looks to be pretty safe territory for the dems in ’04.
Would it help Kerry to have Bill Richardson as his VP–to build on and solidify the Hispanic vote in AZ, NM, CO, etc.–or is that issue not very important given how solidly Dem the Hispanic appears to be?