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.
ThinkingGuy:
Look, I understand your anger and your desire to hit back. Palin is really pissing me off too. I’m not advocating that Obama and Biden not respond to attacks. On the contrary; direct response is essential. But the most effective counterattack won’t be matching Palin’s cheap shots with some of our own. There are so many contradictions between the McCain/Palin messages and their policies, it’s not hard to pick them apart (and Obama/Biden are already doing so).
My experience in sports, business and politics is to trust your training, stick to the game plan and make your shots — in the political world, that means building a strong campaign organization, staying on message and getting out the vote. And if someone throws an elbow, you don’t throw one back; you just don’t back down.
Um, I do not think when the enemy is coming AT you with pitchforks is a good time to start putting them away.
Sorry folks, the MSM is not going to tell it like it is, but the Republicans have unleashed Beauty Queen, and she is going to draw nasty blood anywhere and everywhere she goes..with lies, and insults. We can and MUST fight back with equal venom, or say hello to president McCain.
Ah another “reformer with results,” I guess the McCain campaign is so tied to Bush they are even stealing his campaign themes.
Open Memo to Democrats:
Put down your pitchforks and pick up your ploughshares.
The only way we’re going to win the presidency is through hard work. Ignore the media and partisan “spokespersons”; don’t waste any more time trolling the blogosphere for Republican gaffes and outrageous statements; resist the temptation to vent or be snide. From now until polls close on Nov. 4, we need to put all our efforts into getting out the vote. And the only way to get out the vote is to make phone calls, knock on doors and be physically visible in your community.
History tells us that turnout is the most important factor in close races, and there is no doubt now that this race will be close. Remember 2000? We can fume all we want about a “stolen” election (the thief being either the Supreme Court or Ralph Nader), but the fact is that too many Florida Democrats were either AWOL or voted for someone other than Gore (unbelievably, 12% of Florida Democrats voted for Bush!). If Democrats stay home or vote for McCain because 1) Hillary Clinton isn’t the nominee, 2) McCain/Palin successfully raise doubts about Obama/Biden or 3) no one bothered to ask them to vote, then we will have failed as a political party.
For almost two years now, America has resoundingly supported the Democrats’ optimistic message of change. Americans want our soldiers out of Iraq. Americans want comprehensive health care reform. Americans want a fair and equitable tax policy. Americans want the federal government to provide real leadership and responsible oversight of the economy. Americans want a foreign policy that projects America’s best attributes, not our worst fears. Americans want to roll up their sleeves and solve our energy problems once and for all. We are on the right side of every major issue facing the country today.
The primaries are history. The conventions over. Our job for the next 60 days is to deliver one single message to as many voters — Democratic, Independent and Republican — as possible: that Barack Obama and Joe Biden will bring about the change we all want, and John McCain and Sarah Palin will not. The numbers are in our favor. “Base” Democrats outnumber “base” Republicans this year. If we mobilize Democrats and win over as many Independents and moderate Republicans (those who are turned off by Palin’s vitriol and extreme views) as possible, we can win this election.
BUT WE MUST ACT! Action, powered by a positive and authentic message of change, is the only path to victory. Action is the “secret sauce” that has lifted the Obama campaign from a mere sliver of hope to a real movement. Because at the end of the day, rhetoric and policy positions and good intentions are meaningless if our efforts fall short.
If you’re in this to improve our country, to enact meaningful change and to prove that Democrats have better answers to the pressing questions of the day, then I’m asking you to do the most you possibly can to encourage your family, friends and neighbors to vote, and to vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.