An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

It’s Joe Lieberman Versus Barack Obama (UPDATED)

CARI.Lieberman.gif

Now that Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton is exiting the Democratic Presidential nomination sweepstakes, the Democrats’ presumptive nominee Senator Barack Obama faces smooth sailing from prominent Democrats right? Not quite.

Because it now appears Obama is going to face political sniping from that man progressive Democrats love to hate, Connecticut Independent Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman. And it appears as if Obama doesn’t intent to take that criticism lying down. Literally.

Note this intriguing item carried in the indispensable political news digest site Political Wire:

Roll Call reports that during a Senate vote today, Sen. Barack Obama “dragged” Sen. Joe Lieberman “by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.”

“While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.”

“Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.”

“Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange. Afterwards, Obama smiled and pointed up at reporters peering over the edge of the press gallery for a better glimpse of their interaction.”

What could Obama possibly have to discuss so forcefully with Lieberman? A few things.

Obama is said to have a problem with Jewish voters, although a recent poll suggests this may not be a problem in November. Still, with Lieberman attacking him, essentially taking on the role of the Zell Miller of 2008, it could hurt Obama’s efforts to make inroads with Jewish voters. Lieberman is also openly supporting McCain and traveled with him so much the past few months and clarified several of McCain’s remarks to the extent that one local radio talk show host said Lieberman was McCain’s “translator.”

Could Obama have been talking with McCain yesterday about something like this (which also happened yesterday):

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a McCain supporter, challenged Sen. Barack Obama’s judgment and experience on Israel and national security issues, following the Illinois senator’s speech this morning at the influential pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, conference in Washington. Lieberman said there was “a disconnect between some of the things [Obama] said today” and some of his past statements.

“To be specific, I was troubled earlier in the campaign season when Sen. Obama compared Iran and other rogue and terrorist states to the Soviet Union, and minimized the threat represented by Iran. I think that’s wrong. Today he said he thought Iran represented a grave threat. I think the statement he made today was right.”

Lieberman brought up Obama’s opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, pointing out it was supported by 29 Democratic senators. The amendment passed 76-22.

“That measure was supported by three-fourths of the Senate, including Sens. Reid, Schumer, Durbin and Clinton. Sen. Obama opposed it, saying it was saber-rattling referring to the threat of military force. If you look at the Kyl-Lieberman amendment as it was passed, it has none of that in it regarding military action. I still hope he will say that vote was a mistake and he will support that resolution.”

Lieberman also challenged Obama’s assertions that U.S. policies have had a negative impact on Israel’s security.

This article in the Washington Independent notes that relations between Obama and Lieberman, though cordial enough, are strained. The reason: he “supported Lieberman’s 2006 Democratic challenger Ned Lamont, which Lieberman certainly hasn’t forgotten.” (SEE UPDATE: ABC NEWS SAYS THAT IS INACCURATE) Look for McCain to use Lieberman a lot during the campaign because he is doubly symbolic: because he represents the Democratic party’s greatly-diminished Scoop Jackson wing and is a high-profile Jewish American.

Aside from getting right in Lieberman’s face, does Obama have a strategy to counter Lieberman’s likely role?

UPDATE: ABC’s Political Punch provides more details and says it was indeed an Obama rebuke:

The two spoke intensely for approximately five minutes, with no one able to hear their conversation. Reporters watched as Obama leaned closely in to Lieberman, whose back was literally up against the wall.

Neither party is officially talking. But while Lieberman spokesman Marshall Whitman says the conversation was “a cordial and friendly discussion” and Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says it was “private and friendly,” Democratic sources tell ABC News that the conversation was a stern rebuke to Lieberman for his criticism of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee on the conference call, as well as a discussion about how far Lieberman is willing to go in his advocacy of McCain, and the tone of the campaign.

“It’s one thing to support McCain,” said one Democratic source, “but many think Uncle Joe has gone too far.”

Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006 when he was challenged (and ultimately defeated) in his primary race for his Senate seat. When Lieberman opted to run as an independent, Obama stayed out of the race, unlike other Democrats, such as Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who endorsed nominee Ned Lamont.

And, ABC’s blog goes on to say, some Democrats think Lieberman is now going too far:

“Its a difficult situation,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, the Senate Democrats’ Assistant Majority Leader and a major Obama backer, told reporters Wednesday, according to Roll Call. “Joe is my friend … but I hope he doesn’t become the lead attack dog. Of course it’s a concern when someone in your Caucus is supporting the other party’s candidate. Let’s not try and sugarcoat it.”

Lieberman agreed to caucus with the Democrats, who need his vote in the narrowly-divided Senate, in order to maintain power. But the Nutmeg stater is testing the patience of Democratic leaders by endorsing McCain and agreeing to speak at the Republican National Convention in September. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told MSNBC they would “watch very closely” how far Lieberman takes his advocacy.

But Obama may feel Lieberman has already taken it too far.

  • christoofar
    I pray that the Dems win enough new seats in November to give them enough of a solid majority to enable them to put LIEberman out to pasture, or better yet, give him to the GOP...officially.
  • runasim
    This is Lieberman's thanks to Obama and other Dems who campaigned for him in the past. Nice!

    The Kyl-Lieberman bill was stupid. What does name calling accomplish?
    Did it scare Iran into submission?
    The US has been called a terrorist country so many times, I don't even pay attention anymore. Yet, here we still are, unvanquished.

    On the contrary, passing bills like this for the sake of appearing strong and then not being able to do anything to follow up just exposes weakness. Iran must have laughed hearitly all the way to Iraq, as it widens influence there.
    Nice going Lieberman., thanks for making the US look ridiculous!

    One of the reasons I didn't support Hillary was exactly bacause she does ill-considered things like vote for the Kyl-Lieberman bil, not to mention voting for the Iraq war.

    Lieberman has changed from having primary policy concerns into being a fanatic about them, and he doesn't care who pays the price for his fanaticism.
  • "Obama is said to have a problem with Jewish voters"
    I think it is important to remember that there are AIPAC Jewish voters and the other Jewish voters that from my experience are in the majority. Obama will never get the AIPAC types but probably really doesn't have a problem with the rest.
  • runasim
    Ronbeas,
    I believe ,the AIPAC voters are the most moneyed, however, and donate to campaigns accordingly.
  • It's not difficult to understand why Lieberman and McCain spend so much time together.

    Ostracized by their respective party's more conservative/liberal elements accordingly due to their maverick views (Middle East foreign policy primary for Lieberman and immigration and torture primary for McCain), I think they feel pretty left out sometimes. I kind of don't see it as bad for McCain since his primary antagonists seem to come from the Michelle Malkin/Rush Limbaugh types, whereas Lieberman seems to have antagonists that include more mainstream liberals (IMO), but they know some of their policies are looked down by their respective parties.

    In that atmosphere, it's not surprising that they'd unite together toward their common goals.

    Now, I don't exactly agree with the primary issue they are uniting on, but if more politicians from the parties showed the passion for bi-partisanship those two show, this country would be much better for it.
  • DLS
    "The US has been called a terrorist country so many times, I don't even pay attention anymore. Yet, here we still are, unvanquished."

    There's a difference. Iran *** IS *** a terrorist country. We, the USA, are not, despite the lies of vile scum who would have envious and resentful losers in the rest of the world believe it, or dupe fellow travelers of the real terrorist nations feel fake moral superiority.
  • runasim
    I don't think Lieberman and McCain are showing "passion for bi-partisanship" .
    They are just using each other to advance theri standing among certain voters..

    Since Lieberman , an Independent, in no way represents the Dem party, it doesn't even qualify as bi-partisanship.

    Neither was 'pushed out by their parties. McCain still retains all his committee assignments for the GOP. So does Lieverman, in spite of the fact that he resigned from the Dem party.
    He got a sweet deal, and is using it to the limit, someimes to screw the Dems who have spent years supporitng him.
  • DLS
    Lieberman is largely attacked for having a sane foreign policy view by those who believe it's not kosher for him to divert from the now-adopted-DC-party-line view that any US use of force (or worse, success of its use) is wrong, that the USA is big, bad, and ugly, and the terrorists in Iran and elsewhere are poor, sweet, downtrodden, and terribly misunderstood other than being forced to be less nice than they have always wanted to be because of the Big, Bad, Evil USA and worse, Israel (whom the kosher Dem view views, as do the terrorists, as al-DAJAL in the Middle East).
  • DLS
    "They are just using each other to advance theri standing among certain voters."

    McCain, certainly; Lieberman, unsure, given his against-the-tide record is short (and overly hyped by the hyperventilators).

    It wouldn't be surprising if Lieberman became McCain's VP choice. It would siphon off more independents and swing voters, in theory, who are Dem-leaning as despite the complaints from the Left, Lieberman is obviously a Dem and good old "John-Boy" (as someone on a phone call to me called him) often has acted like a Dem (or at least opposed the GOP to put himself in the news).

    It's just as likely McCain might find a nice Cabinet role for Lieberman and, in fact, other Dems. Think about his shopping among the Gang of 14 for candidates.
  • Lieberman is largely attacked for having a sane foreign policy view


    DLS,

    Time and time again, you defend the foreign policy of Lieberman and other war supporters as being "sane", "logical" and even "patriotic", yet you never actually make as argument explain what was so good about going to war with Iraq.

    Was it really "sane" to drop bombs on Baghdad, a city of more than 5 million people, in order to wage war against a country that had not attacked us and presented no credible threat to the U.S?

    Was it really "sane" to spend more than half a trillion dollars to wage war against a country that had not attacked us and presented no credible threat to the U.S?

    Was it really "sane" to Lieberman and Bush's "conservative" supporters to engage in the biggest nation-building project since WWII?

    Was it really "sane", during a time in which the U.S. deficit is soaring and American dollar is plunging, to use American taxpayer dollars to continue to subsidize the military defense of Iraq (not to mention the more than 100 other countries in the world that the American taxpayer subsidizes)?
  • daveinboca
    nic With 20-20 hindsight, cheap shot artists can all point out mistakes. Bush was the victim of intell from a busted CIA that can't do its job. All in all, it was and is saner than the Hate America crowd that thinks McCain & Lieberman are insane for supporting the US in wartime.

    The insane left has been proven wrong in Iraq & will be proven wrong about Iran.
  • I don't think Lieberman and McCain are showing "passion for bi-partisanship" .
    They are just using each other to advance theri standing among certain voters..
    Reaching across the aisle to get things done (even if it's sometimes the wrong things) can attract groups of voters who might not otherwise vote for you.

    "Since Lieberman , an Independent, in no way represents the Dem party, it doesn't even qualify as bi-partisanship."
    But he caucuses with them, and aside from the war and a few other issues, his voting record largely goes with the Dems.
    If you want to mince words, though, then call it non-partisanship.

    "Neither was 'pushed out by their parties. McCain still retains all his committee assignments for the GOP. So does Lieverman, in spite of the fact that he resigned from the Dem party."
    I didn't say "pushed out." I said they feel left out because certain elements criticize them for their sometimes divergent views.

    Parties are not homogeneous in the views of all their members and they never have been. You get factions. Look at the Republican primary season. You had the foreign policy, economy, libertarian, and religious wings all represented. I'm not sure of the exact divisions with the Democrats, but I know they're there. Those who support the war, for instance. It doesn't mean they go against the party line on lots of things, like some Lieberman haters would frame him as doing.
  • runasim
    Dymero:
    RE:"I'm not sure of the exact divisions with the Democrats, but I know they're there. Those who support the war, for instance. It doesn't mean they go against the party line on lots of things, like some Lieberman haters would frame him as doing"

    Lieberman is activley supporting McCain, the GOP nominee. That's going against the party, I would think.
    Lieberman is soliciting suppor for MCcain among unhappy Clinton campers.
    I would call that going against the Dem party, as well.

    You don't have to be a Lieberman hater to find these activities to be more than a difference of opinion. He is directly trying to undermine the Dem's chances in Nov.
    That's not biparttisanship, that's being anti one particular party.
  • nic With 20-20 hindsight, cheap shot artists can all point out mistakes.


    Dave,

    I was against the Iraq War from the very beginning. Invading a country that had not attacked us and posed no significant threat to us seemed like a bad idea then, and it seems like a bad idea now.

    How is it "20-20 hindsight" when I I based my argument on general principle before the war even started?

    The insane left has been proven wrong in Iraq & will be proven wrong about Iran.

    Are we to understand that Ron Paul, Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, Lew Rockwell, Paul Craig Roberts, Pat Buchanan, Charley Reese, Walter Block, William Lind, Jacob Hornburger, Justin Raimondo, Thomas Di Lorenzo, Thomas Woods, Paul Gottfried, Jude Wanniski, Colonel David Hackworth, and the Pope are all part of "the left"?

    This "left versus right" characterization of the war is growing really old, Dave.
  • daveinboca
    Invading a country that had not attacked us and posed no significant threat to us seemed like a bad idea then, and it seems like a bad idea now.

    That depends on how you define the Gulf War, which I was a particpant in, where Saddam aimed at taking over Kuwaiti & Saudi oilfields to wage economic war on us. That was actually an attack on us, geopolitically speaking, that was obviated by good diplomacy by GHWB & a limited incursion. Saddam with WMD was considered a significant threat to us----and even Saddam's generals thought he had them & was ready to use them against allies of the US in the region.

    In the end, the entire Iraq War project might have positive results, despite the screeching of political ideologists and purists who basically always are on the sidelines. A lot of libertarian loons are against the war simply because they are isolationists---you mentioned quite a few in your laundry list of non-lefties.

    The opposition to the Iraq War has come from opposition to GWB's admittedly clumsy statecraft and sending in a second-rate houseboy to Rumsfeld & Cheney---L. Paul Bremer---who had zero expertise in the region. The military execution was almost as faultless as these things get. The follow-up was doomed as soon as Bremer stopped Zal Khalilzad, a multilingual regional expert, from being his Co-Adjutor in the Prov Govt, as you would know if you had read Cobra II. Rumsfeld sent Arabist Garner & his hundred-man regional team packing because he wanted "fresh ideas." And two hundred man-years of preparation were jettisoned by this inside-the-Beltway Mandarin just like that. At the end of the day, it was GWB's fault for hands-off executive oversight----leaving Cheney to mind the Iraqi store.

    But anyone who read Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm knows that there were more reasons than just WMD to invade Iraq. The UN was about to relax all sanctions in its usual feckless incompetent brain-dead fashion & and after 17 UNSC resolutions, the whole Iraqi mess was going to heat up again.

    The left wanted to punish GWB for winning the 2000 election and geopolitical reasons & facts on the ground were a small part of what the opposition to the Iraq War was all about. It was about politics, mostly, and getting the WH & Congress back from the Repubs.
  • The opposition to the Iraq War has come from opposition to GWB's admittedly clumsy statecraft and sending in a second-rate houseboy to Rumsfeld & Cheney---L. Paul Bremer---who had zero expertise in the region.


    I disagree.

    Indeed some of the opposition to the Iraq War has come from the Bush administration's handling of it, and some of the opposition has come from partisan Democrats who would oppose Bush no matter what he did. But for many Americans, opposition to the war rests on general principle--that principle being that you don't attack another country that has not attacked your country or poses no significant threat to the security of your country.

    You can't characterize opposition to the war as some kind of leftwing phenomenon when some of the most ardent criticism of the war comes from people like Republican Congressman Ron Paul, paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan, paleolibertarians such as Lew Rockwell, and the Libertarian Party.
  • That depends on how you define the Gulf War, which I was a particpant in, where Saddam aimed at taking over Kuwaiti & Saudi oilfields to wage economic war on us.


    The Gulf War, whether you supported it or not, was an elective war. As was our intervention in Somalia in the early 90's. As was our intervention in Serbia in the late 90's. None of those countries attacked the U.S., and none of those countries posed a significant threat to the security of the U.S.

    If you supported any of those endeavors, that's certainly your right. But don't try to argue that those interventions were anything other than what they really were--elective wars.

    With regards to the Gulf War, the United States didn't own the oilfields in Kuwait, so any attempt to argue that Hussein's taking over of the oilfields in Kuwait constituted waging war (economic or otherwise) is just silly.

    The U.S.'s 40+ year old embargo on Cuba has certainly had negative repurcusions on Cuba's economy. Does that mean that the U.S. has waged war against Cuba?
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice/Joe Gandelman | Designed by Elegant Themes | Customized by Tyrone Steels II/Enxit Group, LLC