Clintons play the Joe Lieberman card
No, I’m not talking about voting for the war. I’m talking about changing the rules in the middle of the game.
What angered me about Joe Lieberman’s Independent bid in 2006 more than anything else was his decision to entertain such an option only after losing the Democratic Primary.
He decided that he would play by the rules of the Democratic Party and ask to be their nominee for the Senate. He insisted that he was a Democrat and that he wanted their blessing in his run for the Senate.
When he failed to achieve that, he turned around and insisted that he didn’t need the Democratic blessing in the first place. In essence, he changed the rules midstream. Why didn’t he just run as an Independent from the beginning and cut through the pretense of representing the Democratic Party? The answer: because he only cared about winning. Had he declared himself an Independent in the very beginning he might have alienated enough older, loyal Democrats and lost the seat to the Democratic Primary winner.
Moreover, it wasn’t clear at the time that the Connecticut GOP was going to nominate such a loser as Alan Schlesinger on its ticket. So Lieberman took a chance and placed his marbles, once again, in the Democratic primary basket. He figured he could win – first against no serious competition – and then against insurgent Ned Lamont. Most honest people would have decided after losing the August primary that their gambit had failed and that their efforts to secure the Democratic nomination – and failure to do so – would have ended the race right there.
But Lieberman decided to do what no other politician had ever done before: change the rules in the middle of the election and say “that whole Democratic primary thing doesn’t matter.” Because the GOP ran such a disaster of its own, the gambit paid off in the end. But it permanently severed all remaining trust between Lieberman and the Democratic Party. His endorsement of McCain this year comes as no surprise, even though he dishonestly promised to support the Democrat in the 2008 election.
What does this have to do with Hillary Clinton?
Well, it looks as if she’s also trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.
The Democratic National Committee voted to banish the delegates from Michigan and Florida for moving up their primaries before the February 5 deadline. Whether or not this was a justified punishment, all the major candidates AGREED last fall to abide by the DNC rule and refuse to campaign in either state. While both candidates offered stealth national TV ads into those states, they promised to adhere to the overall DNC ban on those states’ delegates. Until now.
In what Matthew Yglesias calls Calvinball, Hillary Clinton is now suggesting that the Florida votes should count after all – mostly because polling has her ahead in Florida and she’s desperate to get the media to focus on Florida after her South Carolina rout. She has changed the rules in the middle of the game, just as Joe Lieberman did in 2006. Democratic voters should not reward her rank dishonesty and should thoroughly ignore any comments about a Florida “victory.”
Hers really is the politics of the past.
7 Responses to “Clintons play the Joe Lieberman card”
I am more or less a Centrist and have sympathy with Lieberman. I think he acted reasonably when it became clear how big the difference was between himself and his party on a critical issue. He then invited the voters to make a choice. This is a far more honorable way to do it than to feign agreement with the party to get elected and then switch positions or parties.
As for Sen. Clinton's tactic, it is fair game to make the request. But then the party leaders and voters need to weight the implications. I feel that it diminishes her relative to Sen. Obama.
There is a good argument to be made about what the Clintons are doing, but you weaken the point by claiming some bizarre comparison with Lieberman's 2006 campaign. No other politician had ever decided to try running as an independent after losing his party's primary? That's laughable; look up John Anderson's campaign in 1980. Lieberman has reneged on his pledge to support the Democrat in 2008, but how do you know it was “dishonest”. I assume he probably meant it at the time, but changed his mind.
If I wanted to read moderate bashing, I'd head over to Firedoglake.
Brainster,
I should have clarified that I meant only a Senatorial contest – or maybe even any statewide contest. At the Presidential level it's been done…sure. Although it was never successful.
And no, I don't think Lieberman meant that he would support the Democrat at the time in 2006. I firmly believe that he was just saying that to hold on to the 30% of Democratic voters that still supported him in November, and to keep a leadership post on the Homeland Security Committee. He's a neocon through and through, not a moderate.
Paul,
It's all about timing. It isn't like the Iraq war issue wasn't already a major factor in early 2006 when Ned Lamont first appeared on the scene. Lieberman already knew the “big difference between himself and his party on a critical issue” in the fall of 2005 when he launched his campaign. He should have decided AT THAT POINT that he would accept the Democratic voters' judgment or run as an Independent from the getgo. Instead, he saw that his decision might backfire so he decided to change the game.
Joe Lieberman is a neocon? Let me guess, you don't have the vaguest idea of what a neocon is, do you?
Hi Elrod,
re:”I should have clarified that I meant only a Senatorial contest – or maybe even any statewide contest.”
You may have forgotten the failed 1980 bid of Senator Jack Javits to retain his seat on the (now-defunct)Liberal Party line after losing the Republican primary to Alfonse D'Amato because he scored fewer votes than Democratic nominee Liz Holtzman in NY.
The game Hillary is playing with FL delegates she has already done in NV. Remember that some of the caucuses were being held in casinos so casino workers could attend without missing work. This arrangement was agreed upon by all teh candidates last spring. However when the Service Employees' union threw it's weight behind Obama, Hillary (or rather her supporters) immediately tried to eliminate the caucuses in casinos.
FL has a lot of delegates and would be a great state for anyone to have in their pocket.
Paul: I agree that the seating of the FL delegates is a fair request for Hillary (or any of the campaigns) to make. However the time to make it is not the week before the primary. Hillary is going to FL to participate in PRIVATE fundraisers (not public ones) so she is in the state campaigning. She may not be violating the letter of the law (the law in this case being the DNC's decision) but she is certainly violating the spirit. So I have to disagree with you and say that it is not a fair request at this point and she does have an unfair advantage.
elrod is right- “Hers is really a politics of the past.” Whether it will continue to be the politics of the future I don't know. If the FL delegates are seated at the convention (and I suspect they will be if the race os close) then these political games that candidates will play will continue. She's only making the request because she's the only candidate going to FL to campaign (even if it is “private”- though the media will be covering her arrival) and picking up support. It may be a good tactic- if you like the old style politics, but it's not honorable.
“Joe Lieberman is a neocon? “
Joe Lieberman declares he is proud to be identified as a “'Scoop' Jackson Democrat.”
From Jackson's office:
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Frank Gaffney
So yeah, it appears so.