Man in the middle
The New York Times' fifth Democratic presidential candidate profile, on Joe Lieberman, ran yesterday.
I could vote for Joe. I respect the guy for a lot of things, particularly his honesty. He may be a deal-doer and a compromiser, but at least he owns up to his actions. Plus, he (gasp) takes morality and spirituality seriously -- quite the no-no among the latté Democrat set.
The image that Lieberman shoots for is "centrist." That's too far right for many in the party -- Lieberman's support for the Iraq War especiallly raises hackles among a fair number of the party faithful -- but it's principled. And if packaged properly, including with the right kind of running mate, he could be electable in November, although overcoming anti-Semitism in some quarters would be more important (and more difficult) than people might want to admit.
Perhaps his biggest liability is that he's too corporate for the noisy left wing of the party. Too many Democrats want to make an angry statement of across-the-board challenge to Bush, and that leaves moderates like Lieberman out in the cold. Too bad, because it's the middle that decides the elections. I disagree with the vast majority of administration policies, too, but above all, I want an opposition candidate who will win the election. Unlike Lieberman, the hard core ACLU'ers are more interested in hearing themselves talk about their ideas than winning the dirty battles of political life.
In other Demo news, Al Gore, creator of the internet, is backing Howard Dean, 'net darling, and that's bad news for Lieberman, Gore's 2000 running mate. I say, to heck with Gore. Unfortunately for those of us who dislike Bush, Al proved himself a particularly inept campaigner, and his jumping on the Dean bandwagon only reinforces my hunch that Dean is a Dukakis waiting to happen.
Meanwhile, Hillary "In '08" Clinton says she still supports our presence in Iraq, although she would go about running the war differently. This is hardly an endorsement for Dean, and seemingly more in line with what Lieberman has been saying. But the ex-First Lady has not endorsed a candidate, and is probably wisely waiting at least until February, when the field will be narrower -- probably Dean and just one or two credible others. (And Al Sharpton.)
Comments (5)
"quite the no-no among the latté Democrat set"
A couple of things. First off, you're playing into Karl Rove's hand by recycling this kind of language. Soon it will be "limosine liberals."
Two. In the age of the Christian Coalition and the southern strategy, liberals have more than one legitimate reason to be gun-shy on religion. But I think you're essentially right. Alienating Americans because they're religious is a fatal blunder. Plenty of religious folks can be inspired by liberalism. Look at Jimmy Carter. (On the other hand, if you're not particularly religious, faking it's uncool, too.)
That said, Lieberman is a poor candidate, from my view. And with the Gore endorsement, a dead one, too.
Posted by Emma | December 9, 2003 2:07 PM
Have fun with Howard, Emma! And Hillary in '08!
Posted by Jack Bog | December 9, 2003 2:10 PM
Oh, I forgot to gloat. The Gore nod shows Dean is mainstream. Next stop, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave!
(And a keg of beer...) ;-)
Posted by Emma | December 9, 2003 2:31 PM
Emma, Emma, Emma, you incorrigible optimist, you.
Posted by Jack Bog | December 9, 2003 3:13 PM
Lieberman's a great example of the failings of a two-party system, which requires either extremism or dishonesty to get the party's nomination, and then adesperate tack to the center for the general election. Someone already in the center like Lieberman is doomed, even though his combination of forthright foreign policy and reasonable domestic policy would be best for the nation.
Posted by Gordo | December 10, 2003 5:15 PM