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.
zogby poll out saturday will have kerry up 2 in fla.
I live in Milwaukee–and have for the better part of 50 years. Sen. Russ Feingold (“McCain-Feingold”) is running for a third term against an opponent that is far right (to give you an idea how far: no abortion for ANY reason, period) and will win a relatively easy victory. I cannot imagine there will many “Bush-Feingold” ballots. The 4th Cong. District that is essentially the City of Milwaukee has an African-American woman as the Dem. nominee. Of course, this will spur voter turnout in the Milwaukee inner-city.
As far as zeitgeist is concerned, yesterday Kerry had the biggest political rally in state history in Madison, and the Milwaukee Journal (the state’s largest newspaper) endorsed Kerry in a long editorial. There is much more. But, Wisconsin is a state that I know well, geographically and politically. Kerry doesn’t get a free ride, he has to earn his votes. But, I just don’t see it happening for Bush. If, despite everything, Bush somehow wins Wisconsin, then simply color this state “red” for future elections. There is NO reason to believe this is the case.
My only fear is that Most of the states in play seem to be traditional Democratic ones. If Kerry takes the four then great (he could even lose Hawaii and one of the Maine districts and still hit 270 on the nose). But just losing one of FLOHPA makes the matah really tough. I’m not saying he can’t/won’t win, it’s just the battle seems to be uphill. Trying to keep my chin up though.
Wisconsin is turning out to be key.
Bush’s strategy is to take Florida, Iowa, and Wisconsin, figuring they will probably lose in Ohio and Penn.
The Wisconsin polls look slightly better for Bush right now, although I don’t think slightly better is good enough to carry it for him in a big turnout election. The point is, it’s a very strategic battleground state.
Back to national polls for a moment. For my course (I am a political scientist) I compiled data on the national horse-race going back to April. While trying to pick trends out of this polling data is risky, given how much the polls diverge from one another, something interesting seems to be happening.
If you graph over time the share of the two-party preference (i.e. throwing out undecideds and third-party supporters) that Bush is getting in the RV polls, the two candidates are getting closer to parity in the last week.
But if you go by the incumbent’s share of all RV respondents (i.e. including undecideds and others in the denominator), Bush is getting closer to 50%.
In other words, if these are real trends–a big if–the chances that Bush could win the popular vote are increasing. But, paradoxically, the race is simultaneously tightening, meaning a split of the popular and electoral vote could be getting more likely. All the more so given Kerry’s lead in state polls of several key battleground states that we have seen posted here.
The graphs I refer to are at http://irpshome.ucsd.edu/faculty/mshugart/pmp/links.html, at the link entitled “2004 polls update.”
While all this information looks good in favor of Kerry, we have to remember that there are even flaws as of now with Florida. Lets cross our fingers they can get it right this time
Any new numbers about the north central states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa? I think Kerry can be still have the edge without Iowa, but the other two have me nervous.
This late news from Hawaii is troubling too. What’s up with that?
No one’s panicking here, just curious.
Wisconsin? What about Wisconsin?
Kerry can take OH, PA, MI, and still lose without Wisconsin.
(And the Dems are spending $250,000 this weekend in … Arkansas.)
Hope you’re right about Florida .. and that Dems’ votes get counted there this year!
I noted the source for all data here is pollingreport.com. The LA Times web site has an interactive map based on pollingreport.com data. (I think, but may be wrong, that gives non-members access to their members only state-by-state polling data.) The map is a lot of fun because you can color it in based on most recents polls in each state or based on your obsessive desire to see this destructive, arrogant, insular administration bounced out of the White House. When John Kerry gets to 270 it plays “Hail To The Chief.” It is at least as much fun as “How Can Gallup….”
So, if the incumbent’s lead holds in FL, it would seem that the the race comes down to WI (and perhaps even HI)?
Can one of you smart stat-heads put this talk about Hawaii to rest? …. Gore won by 20 or so points in 2000 … I simply do NOT believe that W is ahead…. I’m sure there is some kind of major flaw in this polling…. Any details?
Thanks!
eg
are the average of the polls weighted for sample size?
would it not make sense to add all the samplings together for a state and then determine percentages?
[or are all samples exactly the same size?]
would it make a difference?