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 âunity ticket.â 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.
Liebermanâs 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 incumbentâs right on selected issues, like Ronald Reaganâs 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, âNew Democratâ) member of Congress. This gave his 1998 Senate speech condemning the then-presidentâs behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal as âimmoralâ and âharmfulâ 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 bossâs 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 Liebermanâs 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 âClintonianâ 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 âJoe-mentumâ 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 âThe Kiss,â became central to the Lamont campaignâs 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 Arizonanâs staff convinced him that Liebermanâs longtime pro-choice views and support for LGBTQ rights would lead to a convention revolt. The GOP nominee instead went with a different âhigh-risk, high-rewardâ choice: Sarah Palin.
After Barack Obamaâs victory over Liebermanâs candidate, the new Democratic president needed every Democratic senator to enact the centerpiece of his agenda, the Affordable Care Act. He got Liebermanâs vote â but only after the senator, who represented many of the countryâs major private-insurance companies, forced the elimination of the âpublic optionâ 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 groupâs decision to sponsor a presidential ticket alienated many early supporters of its more quotidian efforts to encourage bipartisan âproblem-solvingâ 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 â sometimes courageously, sometimes foolishly â 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.
This is a great website. Thanks so much. I’d happily chip in, if so required.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Adam+parkhomenko
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Adam+parkhomenko
Here’s the AP/Ipsos poll:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2314
Summary:
Yep, Bush is ahead.
His handling of the economy is up, as is general consumer confidence.
Yep, Kerry is making headway.
His strong support represents 64% of his voters now, up from only 55% of his voters strong in June.
That’s based on Monday-Wednesday poll. On Tuesday-Wednesday only, an additional question was added with full tickets paired. No difference (+4 Bush/Cheney over Kerry/Edwards) than full poll, and down from +3 Kerry/Edwards in June.
Read the whole thing. I think larger trends (improving consumer expectations, handover in Iraq) are more important than first impressions of Edwards in explaining current trends. (Check out the graph called “Consumer Attitudes and Political Measures Chart”)
Let’s see how the rest of July plays out.
See “Kerry’s Non-Southern Strategy”, on how Edwards will help the ticket, by Kenneth Baer in TAP online:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8078
It’s a bit David Brooks-ish in its pop sociological assertions but worth the read nonetheless.
No, it’s a positive theme that we can do something about the divisions in our country, but ignoring them (which seems to be the conservative approcah) will not make them go away.
MARCU$,
Good point; optimistic messages sell well. But do you consider Edwards’ “two Americas” message to be an optimistic one? I don’t. He speaks of the haves and the have-nots, us and them. It’s a divisive, negative theme.
> Edwards has less experience than Dan Quayle.
Conservative TV host Joe Scarborough (of all people!) has a great response:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5389875/
“Today, President Bush took a shot at John Edwards, suggesting the U.S. senator was ill-prepared to be vice president of the United States.”
“The attack was a cheap shot: John Edwards has served the same amount of time in the Senate as George W. Bush served as governor of Texas when he was elected president. The Texas legislature only meets every other year and the governorship of the Lone Star State has long been considered one of the weakest positions of its kind in America. Add to it that Edwards has sat on the intelligence committee through the days before and after September 11th. You could argue that Edwards has more experience in key areas than George W. Bush did when he ran in 2000.”
“Other vice presidents, like Harry Truman, were dismissed as political hacks and lightweights, too, because of their relative lack of experience. But when the Senator from Missouri replaced one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Truman exceeded all expectations and ended up being one of our country’s strongest leaders.”
———————————————————-
> And Edwards’ populist message may sound great
> on the stump but rarely wins votes (ask Al Gore
> or Pat Buchanan).
True, *negative* populism doesn’t sell. But a case could be made that Edwards’ optimistic brand of populism matches that of Clinton and Reagan.
MARCU$
I think Bush’s comment would make a winning campaign slogan.
“Kerry-Edwards ’04:
Otherwise, Cheney Can be President!”
That’s a winner.
Missed the AP Ipsos-Reid poll, which is much worse than the ones you report. It had Bush up 4 and at 50% (albeit with Ralph).
Just want to check arithmetic on the CBS poll. Unless I’ve gone completely off my rocker, isn’t Edwards fav/unfav of 38/9 a net of +29, not +19?
That’s gotta be JamesB3 from dailykos…
Drudge is touting a new AP poll (along w/Faux News, always the most Bush-loving poll) that says Bush has GAINED with Edwards on the ticket, leads Kerry, and has gained confidence on domestic issues and the economy.
The media will make sure that this and the Zogby (who is totally unreliable in good or bad news if you ask new) poll are the only polls that matter, and will try to tell people that Edwards actually helps Bush.
The truth is that it’s just too polarized for any VP candidate to make a real difference.
“Cheney can be president”
Probably the most unintentionally scary thing he could say! đ Let the american people take it as a warning! Yet another unsonsidered statement that will come back quickly to bite W in the ass.
Re: Edwards experience – just to reiterate what has already been stated upthread:
Edwards: 6 years as U.S. Senator
Bush: 6 years as Governor of Texas
Edwards: Successful ($50 million) career as a plaintiff’s attorney.
Bush: Business failed.
Kerry: married into money.
Edwards: made his own fortune.
Bush: born with money.
S Robinson —
Matthew Dowd’s “15% bounce” comment sounds like pure pre-emptive expectations-raising spin to me. Don’t buy it.
I would also add that the prevaling wisdom in 2000 was that who was President would not matter all that much. Times had been so easy with the peace and prosperity that people thought we could put it on autopilot and people could register disgust at Clinton’s affair.
The last four years have disabused us of that notion, and the consensus is that this is an election that matters, and I think a lot of minds have been cast, mostly on the basis of an up or down on Bush — Kerry just needs to not be objectionable.
storwino makes an important point – there is not a lot of room for big changes in this electorate.
Bush and Kerry each probably have 40% of likely voters who are very unlikely to switch in the runnup. Another 5% are pretty devoted to each, leaving about 10% of likely voters in play. So, big bounces are probably not too likely.
If everything plays out normally the undecideds should break Kerry, but if Kerry gives those undecideds a reason not to vote for him – Dukakis in the tank kind of thing, or debate screw ups, it could swing the other way.
I seem to remember though, that under pressure GWB tends to get frustrated and is probably more apt to screw up, whereas Kerry has a reputation of improving when it gets important.
Nice comment, TinMan. The difference is that not many Republicans were taking Hatch seriously as a presidential candidate, while the comment I mentioned came from your (presumptive) nominee. You would have done better to mention the elder Bush’s ‘voodoo economics’ line about Reagan’s tax cuts!
When you hear Republicans disparage Sen. John Edwards’s lack of experience, remember the words of Sen. Orrin Hatch, spoken to George W. Bush at a debate on Dec. 6, 1999.
“You’ve been a great governor,” Hatch declared of his rival for the Republican presidential nomination. “My only problem with you, governor, is that you’ve only had four and going into your fifth year of governorship. . . . Frankly, I really believe that you need more experience before you become president of the United States. That’s why I’m thinking of you as a vice presidential candidate.”
I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Kerry-Edwards would get a quick bounce. Even Matthew Dowd, Bush’s chief strategist, estimates that Kerry may gain a 15-point bounce between naming his VP and the media attention from the convention. My surprise is all the excitement Edwards is generating among the Dems. Edwards has less experience than Dan Quayle. Didn’t Kerry make a comment about Edwards still being in diapers when Kerry came back from Vietnam? And Edwards’ populist message may sound great on the stump but rarely wins votes (ask Al Gore or Pat Buchanan).
As far as ‘earning’ their money, you know the GOP will spin this as one marrying into money (twice!) and the other making it from contingency fees.
The initial reaction was positive, but the long term traction depends on how the ticket is sold – and there appear to be a few great ways to build on the buzz.
1) Pound on the fact that both Kerry and Edwards have been a success in every job that they have ever had.
2) Repeat often that they both have excellent training – great grades, consistent focus on getting things done.
3) Reiterate that neither of them came from wealthy backgrounds – Kerry’s dad was in the State Dept, and one was a mill worker. One upper middle class, one lower middle class. But neither grew up wealthy. Instead they went and earned it.
Of course, these are not too subtle contrasts.
Here’s a press release from Zogby.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews839.html
I tend to agree with Zogby’s take that there just isn’t room for a lot of movement in our electorate today.
I was interested to note at the very bottom they mention the “slight weights” they added to account for region, party, age, race, religion, gender and presidential voter. This sounds really suspect to me. Trying to be conservative, I guessed there would be:
4 categories for region,
3 categories for party,
4 categories for age,
4 categories for race,
2 categories for religion,
2 for gender, and
2 for presidential voter.
Based on that I arrived at 1536 unique categories. I would say that the margins of error in those sub-groups would be higher.
I’m guessing he applies some kind of clustering based on all those factors. Does anyone know anything about what he’s doing?
What are the chances that Bush will drop Cheney, as some Republican bloggers are fantasizing?
Found it– Google “Zogby Edwards July,” then click on the News link (Bloomberg reports the whole poll, which says no bounce– nothing about night one vs night two, though).
Where can we see that Zogby two-night poll?
> “Mr. Bush, is it true, as the New Republic reports,
> that you are playing election year politics with the
> security of the United States? Why was going after
> these high value targets not a concern for years,
> invading Iraq instead, but when you have fallen
> behind in the polls, has it become necessary to
> capture him before the election.
Josh Marshall made the same exact point the other day. Why is getting Osama suddenly such a high priority when it clearly wasn’t in the spring of 2003??
I agree it is probably better if Kerry raises the point in advance. His campaign might perhaps want to repeat this basic message in a number of attack ads, to thoroughly raise the point that the Bushies are “extremely concerned about terrorists” only when it suits their partisan goals at home… Osama was clearly a unwelcome distraction in early 2003, for example, when voters had to be reminded about the real and perceived dangers of Saddam at every opportunity.
MARCU$
Would you comment on the new Zogby 2-nite poll? He suggests a large bounce for Kerry/Edwards on the first night, followed by an even GREATER swing toward Bush on the second night?
Marcus,
Kerry shoudl do something with that article. Something along the lines of
“Mr. Bush, is it true, as the New Republic reports, that you are playing election year politics with the security of the United States? Why was going after these high value targets not a concern for years, invading Iraq instead, but when you have fallen behind in the polls, has it become necessary to capture him before the election.
“The American people will forgive a lot in their President, but they will not forgive a President putting his own election concerns above the security of the United States. These are serious charges and I urge you to repudiate them, and to get to the bottom of why they are being leveled. You might want to do the same with the Plame case. Furthermore I ask you to repudiate your failures in the area of American security, and to change courses to one of greater security for Americans above partisan electioneering. You might not win the election, Mr. President, but it will go along way toward regaing your honor and dignity.”
Perhaps a rewrite or two đ
I am really nervous about July 27, though. THE NEW REPUBLIC reports the Administration is working as hard as it can to pressure Pakistan to capture Bin Laden and/or other leading Al Qaeda operatives before Kerry/Edwards are officially nominated in Boston three weeks from now, or before the November elections at the very latest. And the Paki’s have some incentives to comply, since they reportedly are worried about Kerry/Edwards favoring India if they win the elections (Democratic presidents usually feel less inclined to do business with military dictators in Pakistan than do Republican ones).
MARCU$
Thanks for the breakdown. I have nothing to add to the conversation except that I am a bit surprised by my own gut feeling that it’s s a good choice. Pleasantly surprised.