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.
What I am most afraid of are the SC justices that George Bush will appoint if he is re-appointed as president (s)elect. They will impose a total ban on all abortion, no doubt. This will be good for Democrats because that decision would be so unpopular that a Republican would not see office for fifty years. For the many Americans on the left who are craving a Hillary Clinton presidency, don’t count on it. No matter what happens in November with the Bush re-selection, the Republicans are going to sink Hillary’s senate seat if they have to spend their last dollar. Then, make way for Gore in ’08.
If the fat cats and bible beaters get their way, the church will run the state, the nation, and eventually, the world. I believe in Christianity, and I also have a tendency to favor Democracy over Banana Republicanism. To my rural friend Chandler in Kentucky, keep the faith. I have been on an OE (overseas experience) since the onset of the Iraq war in early 2003, teaching English in Southeast Asia. I am now in Singapore, and I want to come back home to Kerry Country next year. Only you good voters can make that happen! If Bush is re-elected then I’m moving to New Zealand, at least it will take him a longer time to drop a bomb there.
Please deliver me my country back and deliver the White House to John Forbes Kerry!!!
Thank you for information !
it is reasonable to suppose the mess in Iraq will only get worse as the election gets close. Some Americans see the handwriting on the wall and the cry for immediate withdrawl, as it finally did when we warred on Vietnam, will become a majority view. John Kerry knows this and from his Vietnam experience must see that absolute withdrawl asap is the best way to end our involvement. After all, again as with Vietnam, whenever we leave the result will be the same. The Iraq that will emerge if we leave today, next year or in ten years will be a tribal/theocratic corrupt coalition of elites. Kerry must come out for withdrawl if he wants the growing and soon to be massive anti-war movement to bring him to the White House.
bush is by a million miles the worst president that this country has ever had. If America elects him then America is lost forever. Goodbye America and goodnight. I cry for our children. I cry for the world.
Ask anyone why they would vote for bush and then confront them with their hypocracy. Use the facts, help them see the truth. Everyone must do what they can to save our country, one vote at a time.
Diebold will make sure that Nader gets a significant
number of Democrat votes,
workingpoor, I appreciate your insight into rural KY. Presumably Louisville is a little different. I once lived in remote parts of Utah. Your story rang a bell for me, though in those days I was far enough out there (pre-satellite) we had no TV and 3 radio stations. In many ways that was a blessing. Your second post gives me hope. “Redneck” had a few progressive facets once. It will be a trick getting that back. Once again thanks.
Reinstitution of the Fairness doctrine should be a major plank of the Democratic platform. It could be implimented by FEC regulations under a Kerry presidency. Also, the licensing should be changed so that consumers have some teeth; compaints from citizens could be investigated and liscenses pulled in a timely fashion. Disabled people like me would LOVE to monitor and document violations if there were a practical proccess for making an impact!
The emerging Democratic majority would pull together much faster if accurate information were freely available to the general public.
I apologize for posting so lengthy a commentary.
I broke it into three parts because I was unsure of the word limit.
The good news is the natives are getting restless anyway. The Bush-Cheney bumper stickers have completely disapeared, as have the “pro-life” billboards and political statements on the lighted signs in front of the chuches. Factory workers are complaining about Health care and low wages and pointedly refusing to discuss politics. (Around here if your politics aren’t redneck, you best avoid the subject.)
Even the proffessionals have no idea whats going on. When asked about problems with the NCLB, legislation, several professional teachers in town drew a blank.
Most people around here smell a great big rat, but they have no informational base to understand why. Discussion is taboo. Questioning is actively discouraged. And they are inundated with propaganda. And I beleive most disaffected people don’t bother to vote.
The only way to break thru is to reinstitute the FEC fairness doctrine (repealed by the Gingrich Congress) and force the media to present both sides and honest news and information.
DennisS-As a dedicated leftwing Dem now living in rural red state Kentucky, I can offer some insight into the question of how Americans can put Bush back into office. A good percentage of people here can’t read and are dependent on the spoken word for information. Rush Limbaugh is available to them 15 hours a week. NPR is useless; they actually censor the All Things Considered standup peices to report only the parts that make Bush look good. Our local Rep. Hal Rogers is lauded glowingly in the local papers when he delivers pork, otherwise is never mentioned. The only television station that my rural area gets is KET public telivision. They play Lou Dobbs and the Leher news, but otherwise it is Lawrence Welk and crafts, hunting and fishing. They show Bill Moyers at 11 on Friday nights, when most of the local population is stoned to the gills or sound asleep. Most rural people don’t have access to cable, and don’t have the credit for sattellite service without a large cost upfront. The preachers around here rant from the pulpit that the Net is the Devil’s work, and around here that is major; if you aren’t a good ‘Christian’ you are ostrasized and unemployed.
Kerry is a joke..he has NO chance about Dubya…People know Kerry will turn our national security over to the crooked, useless UN..
Vote Bush..he is our only hope..
A vote to little liberal kerry is a wasted vote
Seth the Supreme Courts decision was about the re-count, not who won the vote. Had they allowed the real votes to be counted then the electoral count would have given President Gore the election.
No one was challenging the electoral college.
The Supreme Court does not have the power or authority to change the law/system. They only interpret the law and that is what they did in Florida. So the scenario that you quoted could not happen.
John Kerry will be our new President come next November, with the popular vote and the electoral college both to his favor. No Supreme Court crowning/appointment/annointment/ this time.
We should concentrate on them stealing the votes before they are counted, now there’s something to keep an eye on.
Honestly, I don’t know why you bother. Just as the Scalia 5 wrote a very special decision in 2000, one that couldn’t be used as precedent in any other election dispute, they will tailor make a decision again. If Kerry wins the electoral vote and loses the popular vote, the Supreme Court will say that at a time of war and grave national crisis, the country would suffer irreparable harm if the winner of the popular vote was thrown out of office.
It’s inevitable. Bush will be reappointed.
In response to Alan’s question at the top, Gallup talks about “purple” states, in which Bush or Gore won by 5 percentage points or less. I think there were 15 of them: Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Florida, New Hampshire, and Maine. In those 15, the total results in 2000 had Gore ahead by two-tenths of one percent, 17,051,343 to 16,987,908. Gore got 85 electoral votes from those states, and Bush got 84. The next two closest states, Washington and West Virginia, had margins between 5 and 6 percent. So any lead at all in that group is significant, and a lead of 6 or more points indicates the possibility of a sweep, pushing that party up to around 340 electoral votes. I think Kerry has at least an even shot in every one of the 15 except Tennessee.
I hope that you are wright WE in AMERICA need a brake after years of THE REPUBLICAN LIES AND THE LAP DOG MEDIA THERE TO BACK THE REPUBLICANS UP TOO MANY OF TE+THE AVERAGE MAIN STEET AMERICANS HAVE BEEN BLEEDING AND ALL OF THE DYING FOR THE REPUBLICANS.
You heard it here first. Take it to the bank. America will win this election, unlike the last presidential election.
D?
Hah! Maxcat, from your mouth…
I have absolutely no basis in fact for saying this, aside from being a longtime Kerry fan (30+ years) and constituent, but I don’t think in the end it’s even going to be close. I think Kerry wins fairly easily, not a landslide, but not a nailbiter either.
I am going to be more optimistic. A landslide by Kerry will coat tail many democrats into office, is my prediction.
The polls I’ve seen show that Americans would rather have a democratic than a republican in a generic congressional election. The Senate will stay about 50/50, but I think the Dems will gain some ground in the House ’04, regardless of how the Presidential Election plays out.
I’m curious about the effect Bush’s standings will have on the other races. The plan was to stage a quick, victorious war, get a landslide for Bush, and pull a lot of Repugs along on his coattails. That clearly is not going to happen. The race looks tobe extremely close. What affect will that have on the other races?
The Alliance for Justice has launched a new website urging Justice Scalia to recuse himself from the Cheney energy case! Check it out: http://www.ChooseToRecuse.org Scalia can recuse himself anytime before the Supreme Court renders its decision.
There is a great flash animation that goes with it too. You have to see “Quid Pro Quack” http://www.allianceforjustice.org/action/scalia/flash.htm Duck’em!
PoliticalBlogger, well only if we are going to apply the stick equally to everyone. But then again that would mean……………..
Since Jesus isn’t here to give communion to, we had better not go there, if you know what I mean.
So is this “Top Official” polling his local congregation? It’ll save him a lot of time wasted giving communion to all those undeserving.
And let’s not even get started on the bushman.
I heard a tape of bush saying he thought God wanted him to be President. I think he just misunderstood what God said. What He really said was “That He wanted bush to be present”, for his NG duty that is. Hey it was an honest mistake, yeah right.
When you are being shot at and they meanto kill you , you are not woried about THE VATICAN, AND DON’T YOU YOU GO TO HELL FOR LYING
Fred you are right on the money, bush will go down very hard. Keep the faith. My biggest worry is that through the manipulation of polling data and the media, the bushies are working to keep Americans thinking that this race will be close. Why? Well if we all think that the race is close then we will be ripe for a theft, just like in Florida 00. This ain’t no grassy knoll guys.
There is no way in H that our fellow Americans will vote bush for president with everything that he has done. If bush wins then We the People will have been the objects of a Royal screwing.
LETS stacklimbaugh,BUSH ,ROVE, O’NEALL, AND THE REST OF THE COWARDS WAR records up against JOHN KERRY. THEY WERE COWARDS . AND MOST OF THE LAP DOG REPORTERS WERE COWARDS. I am not a hero but I did my duity. AND I DID NOT CLAIM TO HAVE AN INGROWEN HAIR ON MY ASS. AND MY FEET ARE FLAT, BUT I WAS STILL FIT TO GO. THE MEDIA HELPED BUSH LIE NOW OUR TROOPS DIE. I SAY LETS BRAKE UP THE LAP DOG MEDIA AND VOTE BUS BACK TO CROWFORD.
The descrepancy between the national average and battleground states is because Bush’s support in Red states is more than Kerry’s support in Blue States. Therefore, Kerry can be doing better in battleground states than in the nation as a whole. Elections are about the electoral college, not the popular vote. In fact, I recently read an article in The New York Times suggesting that Bush may win the popular vote, and Kerry the electoral college.
Fear not everyone. I have total faith in John Kerry. I was not for him in the primaries, and was actually feeling sorry for him. The joke was on me and a lot of others. Do I have to remind everyone of the political obituaries out there before the actual voting began. Like Kos said the other day, the man knows how to close. This will be a “slam dunk” election. If not, then put to bed Abe’s famous “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Just look at the record. What kind of people would put this man back in office after the horrific record he’s put up. When push comes to shove, in the voting booth, I can’t see a majority of our fellow citizens pulling that Bush lever. After all, it’s about self preservation, and this gang is destroying this country, and I can’t believe that a majority of the American people could be that dumb. I have a little more faith in them than some. I hope it’s warranted.
Note that the battleground states sample has been determined by Bush’s advertising strategy and excludes 33 states that gives Bush 190 safe EV and Kerry only 168 EV, so Kerry had better be ahead. A more reasonable sample would include Colorado (which has been polling closer than Washington) and Lousiana in the battleground category and would be Bush 172 safe EV, Kerry 168. Striking how the Kerry campaign is letting Bush define the battleground states to the extent that the media and independent polling groups simply accept the Bush sample. Democrats should not.
It seems dEMOCRACY is unfortunately in the hands of UNLIKELY voters. Spain is example of UNLIKELY voters saying enough is enough. I take little comfort in the views of LIKELY voters (traditional).
Here’s a link to the Hotline article:
http://nationaljournal.com/pubs/hotline/h040422.htm#38
I decided to reread Ruy’s book the Emerging Democratic Majority. It gives me further hope for a Dem victory in November. I have done my own calculations of electoral votes and find that Kerry will have 296 without Florida. I really believe the scandal-ridden administration will take a tumble in the polls this summer with the coming out of Wilson’s book and the belief that legally things will begin to happen on this front.
I’ll try and take comfort from your close analysis of the polls and the fact that we’re still a long way from November but I still can’t help being dismayed by my countrymen. You’d think that after recent events in Iraq and the steady stream of revelations, (Clarke et al), every segment of the country would be eager to express their dissatisfaction with Bush. Even if Kerry wins we still have to live next to these people and there are too many to call them a cult. That is the source of my anguish.
Yet a crazed fundie Santorum clone like Toomey is beating the slightly more sensible Specter.
How can you figure PA voters would be any smarter when it comes to the presidential race?
I’ve been working on a Keystone Poll for the Specter/Toomey race. If the responses that I’ve been getting on the calls I’ve made are any indication I think a lot of PA Republicans are not happy with Dubya. When asked about Bush on the Fav/Unfav/Undecided question, a lot are responding undecided. I think PA is going to be more comfortable for Kerry than the polls seem to be indicating.
Elections are won in voting booths in November, not in polls in April.
Fight like hell no matter what the polls say!
Remember everyone:
From January to July of 1992, the presumptive Democratic nominee was polling THIRD behind an incumbent named George Bush (H. Ross Perot was polling second).
Bill Clinton would go on to win the electoral vote 370 to 168, and the national popular vote by 6 percentage points.
Then again, President Harry Truman was behind in ALL polling all the way up to Election Day and still managed a SLIGHTLY comfortable victory margin.
Pins and needles!!! The next 6 1/2 months are going to make the “extended dance remix” that was the 2000 presidential election like childs play.
2.004k.com is a new site that tracks state-by-state polls. Here’s a page showing all races, sorted by trend:
http://2.004k.com/trend/
It shows 17 toss-up states, polling within the margin of error.
Of the remaining states, the tally shows Bush with 196 Electoral Votes, and Kerry with 96.
(and taking a snapshot of recent polls as of 4/22/04, shows Bush with 311 electoral votes and Kerry with 227)
This trend if it continues would lead to a wonderfully ironic result – a Bush popular plurality, a Kerry electoral victory.
The looks on Rove/Limbaugh/Dennis Miller/Zell Miller et al faces would be priceless, and when they spout that Kerry should bend to the will of the people we will all have a good laugh…
I second Raj comments. The Kerry campaign needs to get its “air force” off the ground and counter-attacking. Right now, Bush et al has carpet-bombed the battleground states. The Kerry campaign needs a whole lot more vigor and spirit. Please get kicking Bush’s ass.
Hey,
I think it is important to recognize that there has been an upswing in Bush’s support and these commercials do seem to have some impact. I live in Boston (in the same TV market as Southern NH), and I see dubya commercials all the time misrepresenting Kerry’s record. Where are MoveOn.org’s, ACT, or Kerry’s commercials. What is being done with the money. Anecdotely, speaking to people, I know that Bush’s commercials are having an effect. There is no reason to sugar coat it, the Bush team is not stupid. They know what the hell there doing and we can’t get complacent….
The question is. What were the percentages between President Gore and Mr. Bush in the Battleground States in 2000 compared to what the polls say is the difference today between Kerry and Bush?