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.
I think having one video for the party was good and probably long enough. It felt a bit safe and incomplete though, with some preaching to the choir in there.
I’d like to see informative specific topic videos added to this. It wouldn’t hurt to go outside of the usual way of communicating these things. There are more options for political messaging than just playing it safe or being crude.
a couple suggestions: with reproductive health, rather than only mention abortion, that topic should include programs Democrats support for women who choose to have a child but also can’t afford it – like low or no cost prenatal (and pediatric) care. Other programs democrats support for kids would be good too add too. (WIC, SNAP and free lunches…etc) Make sure you have some white people in there.
There should be something about how democrats are supportive of dads too. Whether with education or job placement programs or any kinds of assistance for themselves and their family. That could be about the economy but also in general supporting the existence of a strong safety net is being for the health and welfare of all families. Restricting and or removing it makes the country less safe by creating desperation on many fronts.
And Democrats, the American dream or dreamers could include a visual of kids in classrooms or adults wanting to go to school and trying to figure out how to pay for it.
You could go a long way with that theme. You arent separating DACA youre including it.
“no matter who they are or who they love” should add a visual of a traditional relationship or family set up too.
With health care, choosing between food and treatments wasnt entirely accurate because food is much cheaper.
George Entenman makes goods points about greater inclusion of images of people. I would add a photo of President John Kennedy, something on unions, and making progress on past accomplishments.
The themes are strong but there isn’t a central theme to bring them all together, it’s a collage of stories rather than a focused theme. Having seen Pete Buttigieg speak, he draws freedom into the equation of everyday life.
It requires freedom to get a fair shot without being discriminated against based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference.
It requires freedom to enjoy an environment of natural beauty not bound by corporate greed and eminent domain.
It requires freedom for a woman to decide how she handles her reproductive health.
It requires freedom to be able to have a health care system where you feel comfortable going to see a doctor and not to decide whether or not to see them based on cost.
It requires freedom to not have your entire adult years burdened by student loan debts.
It requires freedom to have a labor/supply chain based on the premise that labor is driving force in the economy and not corporate greed.
It requires freedom for a person who works full-time to have a wage that is able to provide proper resources to them and their family.
It requires freedom for students to be able to enter a school and feel safe.
Etc., etc., etc.
Of course, a follow-up video should be based on the premise on how we intend to provide those freedoms to our society (which it currently lacks).
“What’s your take?”
Move it to the fing top.
Given how badly the party has done lately maybe a better approach would be compare and contrast with Republicans on the issues that Democrats are actually good at. This would also reflect the reality that a lot of people are voting Democrat just because Republicans are terrible.
This ad actually captures pretty well what a lot of people think about the party nowadays
Summary Translation of the “We are Democrats” ad
We are the NYC party (Statue of Liberty opening)
We think we have done very well for the American people for a very long time (For decades opening)
A very specific and limited proposal like the Dream Act is as important as the American Dream as a national value
Pandering to individual demographic groups
Pandering to individual one issue constituencies
One minute in before talking about economic issues
Mention of LBJ?
Affordable Care Act as non-plus ultra of healthcare
The New Deal is not self-explanatory
The economic recovery was no universal recovery and has very little in common with the policy program of the New Deal
Platitudes about wages
Platitudes about social change
Empty overpromising
I’m all for everything shown in the ad, but I think it makes a terrible mistake in not having more white people in it. Is this supposed to make white working people feel included? Is that one old photo of a woman holding a Social Security check supposed to appeal to the residents of retirement communities? Where is a small business owner, male or female? Where is a young tattooed person hard at work on a computer? Where are scientists who are losing the gov’t support they need for basic research? Where is a sense of optimism, of possibility? We need to fight the forces of evil, but we need to have hope and opportunity too.