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.
Yes, mobilization is KEY and it’s not too late for anyone to get involved. Here are easy ways to do SOMETHING, complete with links to get you started NOW. Please pass on to your friends, especially those in swing states, or who know people in swing states.
http://www.helpkerrywin.com/
Hey, how about the Libertarian factor? You gotta think that there are some Repubs that will vote Libertarian this year b/c they can’t stomach voting for a ‘liberal’ but they hate the Justice Department’s promotion of the Patriot Act.
In regards, to Nader, I’d be surprised if he gets half of what he got last time (approx. 2.7% of the vote). Look, the only people that will vote for Nader are the anarchist, hemp-advocate types that don’t vote Dem anyway. Even Chomsky is recommending that people vote Dem in swing states.
Nader is not a factor for the remaining UNDECIDEDS.
He will have minimal impact on the states in which he remains on the ballot, but I do not believe his total will have relevance this election.
Kerry is going to win big, so it won’t matter.
As *possible* evidence of my previous point about Fla, see today’s WP… there’s a story about how Dems are turning up in larger proportions than Repubs in early FLA voting so far… i.e., a county has 35% registered Dems, but Dems make up 40% of all early voters there…of course, that might not statistically mean anything…But at the least, it reflects energy, I would think…
eric…
…in the end, I really think Kerry will win Florida… Recall they projected that the minimum wage initiative would churn out a 5% turnout increase — people on the low end who come out to vote themselves a pay increase are going to be overwhelmingly Democrat…
Also, Nevada has a similar referendum on the ballot…My guess is that the Kerry people see some internal polling out there predicting a similar surge (like the one possible in Fla)… Having Kerry speak there last night to energize canvassers may push him over the edge…
Any comments?
Thanks!
eric…
The best thing the Democrats could ever do (in preparation of the 2008 election of course) would be to embrace Nader and follow his lead for reform. His specific analysis is invaluable and will provide the Democratic party with a road map for winning the 18-35 progressive block of young voters. This is the age group that will be most politically savvy, most informed (due to growing up with the Internet), and most difficult to attract to the Democratic circle with “Business As Usual”. The tactics of Clinton and the “run to the middle” methods will not work in 2008. Reform is on the horizon.
For some time, the site has taken note of the fact that Democrats have historically been better at GOTV efforts than Republicans, noting this as a reason to discount LV polls that show a seemingly disproportionate Bush lead.
That wasn’t the case in the 2002 midterms, however. Karl Rove took the lesson from Gore’s 2000 effort, and spent a lot of time and money on his “72 Hour Project,” which many credit with the R’s surprisingly sound victories.
This year’s efforts make ’02 look like chump change – the R’s have spent unprecedented millions in organizing their ground game, including both their standard voter suppression/intimidation efforts and the D’s standard phone banks and other GOTV efforts.
I’d be interested in hearing some thoughts about how this might effect the standard curve re: high voter turn out – why would things be the same as 2000 this time around?
There are now states with early voting, at which exit polls could be done. However, early voters may be atypical. At least, I have had described to me such data for one state, expected to go for Kerry, with Kerry where he was expected to be in the lead, Bush lagging, and largish (6% each) numbers for Badnarik and Cobb. As I said, early voters may be atypical.
I said (http://deep_blade.tripod.com/journal/index.blog?entry_id=233424) just this when Nader announced. Here in Maine, our state Democratic Party wasted countless hours and alienated thousands of Green voters (most of whom could be convinced to vote for Kerry with the right persuation) with an ill-conceived and ultimately failed attempt to deny Ralph Nader ballot access. Meanwhile, we can’t even get Kerry/Edwards lawn signs. Couldn’t some of that lawyer money have helped the ground campaign?
http://www.econ.umn.edu/~amoro/Research/presprobs.html#basic
Andrea Moro’s work from UMINN. She is calling it 51.4% probability of victory with a 6 EV margin towards Kerry for the final vote(Simulation study)
Basic work Bush 271.
MOBILIZE the troops! Her website has some really interesting visuals. It looks like bush is trending negative but we must keep up LTE’s to counter his prevarications.
Electoral Vote.com had 271 Bush 267 Kerry tonight. Bush is beatable!
The trendlines are running Kerry’s way but it is absolutely important that we sell our man to every undecided voter!
three of the four electoral vote predictors on 2004k.com were calling it for Kerry tonight. It is Kerry’s to lose! We need to help him put it away!
Kerry is not going to lose WI. Did you see the picture of the rally? I think the recent Strategic Vision polls (plus SUSA) has given the picture that WI is vulnerable. I don’t think this is going to happen. IA I could see Kerry losing. If it ends that way, Kerry wins with 2 out 3 big state strategy. No doubt about it, it’s going to be a rough fight in OH, FL, IA, and WI. I think PA is a lost cause for Bush. NH is going Kerry. Don’t even worry about NJ. NM is gonna be Kerry. NV, I’m not sure if Kerry’s time there is well spent. CO will probably go Bush. If this holds, Kerry wins!
I’ve spent a lot of time this year doing craft-registration of voters (craft = small number…17 this year…but maintaining contact and getting them to mobilized and to the polls and in many cases registering people themselves).
A lot of the population I deal with are natural Nader supporters, so I’m familiar with the demographic in this specific region.
Very few Nader supporters will vote Nader this time and will vote for Kerry. Reason: They believe Kerry is campaigning as what they view as a Democrat, while they didn’t vote for Gore Junior in 2000 because believed herwas campaigning as Kinder, Gentler Republican.
The Nader voters I meet now are more frequently not Nader supporters — they are “perfect voter” types who are conservative and generally vote Repub but will not vote for Bush Junior. And yes, there are some militant Nader supporters in the remainder, too.
But the Greenberg Fade effect will most probably happen, and especially in states perceived as close races.
The only problem with the current “Three State Theory” (whoever wins 2 out of 3 between OH, PA, FL wins the election) is that Bush is doing better in both WI and IA and that KE could win PA and OH, lose FL, IA, and WI, and lose the election. That may be why Kerry is campaigning in NV right now.
Some other potential areas for stumping may be NC, VA and WV. At least make Bush defend these.