A question on Gore Lieberman . . . . WHY?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

I have always been mystified about Al Gore's choice of Joe Lieberman. Lieberman was a relatively unknown political hack, until Gore pulled him out of obscurity and put him into the limelight, for each Sunday thru sundown Friday.

WHY? Was this a DLC choice, trying to unzipper Al's connection to Clinton? Was this an effort to placate the right and center? Was this an effort to buy off the jewish vote, which had been heading (with AIPAC's help) towards the nutwing portion of the GOP?

The first decision I recall was that Lieberman refused to withdraw from his senate race - a decision I thought egotistical and foolhardy. Then I began to listen to Joe talk, and I found that I did not like what I heard.

Anyone able to clear this up for me?

[femmocrat]

1. Lieberman was the anti-Clinton.

He had denounced Clinton's behavior on the floor of the Senate. This appealed to the dems who wanted to distance Gore from the news coverage of Clinton's affair, lie, impeachment, moral failings, etc. In addition, Lieberman was portrayed as a man of deep religious conviction.

There was probably more to it, but that was the general spin in the media at the time.

[Karenca]

2. "to unzipper Al's connection to Clinton"

That.

[Atman]

3. They're all DLC buddies

Read the Hartford Courant stories this morning. Lots of DLC bedfellows involved...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2427964

[Warpy]

4. I think it was a DLC choice to balance what they saw as

a dreadfully liberal ticket. Gore was always suspected of being to the left of Clinton, their GOP-lite icon. They felt they needed a hidebound conservative to balance the ticket. Lieberman was the choice because he was also a Northerner, and DLC types have always insisted (wrongly) that people vote by region.

No word on why the DLC likes to ignore everything west of the Mississippi.

That's the past. The question now is whether or not the party is going to allow these men to torpedo the candidate in 2008.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. good point. If joe loses, they HAVE to rethink their policies.

I hope.

[HamdenRice]

10. I hope it forces Hillary to rethink her positions nt

[calico1]

6. Gore wanted to distance himself from

Clinton. Clinton, in the minds of some was immoral and Gore wanted someone with a squeaky clean reputation. Who better than Lieberman who railed against Clinton on the Senate floor and whom the GOP had absolutely no dirt on?

In retrospect I'm willing to bet Gore realizes now that it was a mistake. Not only to choose Lieberman but to back away and distance himself from Clinton.

[Perky]

7. One Word answer: Florida

It actually was pretty successful stratgy bu the Nader factor kieed us. as did the butterflyballot in WestPalm

[EST]

8. From my own "centrist" POV, I remember

Clinton's dalliances were the idle talk and speculation, even among those of us who were mature enough to understand that people sometimes do foolish, irresponsible things.
Gore was influenced to choose as republican a running mate as possible in an effort to show that he respected the "offendedness" of the average, nosy parlor peeker. His mistake. Well, actually the mistake of the DLC.

Lieberman was the dlc candidate and represented an effort to give them a stronger stake in both that election and the succeeding ones.
That disconnect from reality came about from a total lack of understanding of the voting public and an assumption that people were smart enough to see through such an obvious ignorant oaf as George Bush and they figured the campaign to be a "laffer." The red neck candidate was going to stop the gathering storm of right wing bigotry and incompetence in its proverbial tracks and do some permanent damage to the republican party. Of course, that was a total miscalculation and they still haven't managed to connect the clues.

When Lieberman came to national prominence, it was still possible to be a centrist democrat and to succeed at bringing people together for both public good and personal enrichment. His excesses in condemning Clinton made him the darling of the wingers and helped him secure the candidacy.

Lieberman is a has-been who cannot conceive of the notion that he should modify his stance on issues and learn from circumstances. Like an Autumn grasshopper, he cannot and hasn't the time left to change.

[HamdenRice]

9. 1. Distance from Clinton 2. Shore up Jewish vote

The first has already been covered. By the second, I don't mean in some anti-semitic conspiracy theory way. It's just that a big part of the reliable Democratic vote is a coalition of minorities: African Americans, Jews and the Puerto Rican/Chicano portion of the Latino population.

Remember just as Clinton was leaving office, he was pressuring the Likud government of Netanyahu and the PLO's Arafat to come up with a comprehensive land for peace deal that would salvage Clinton's legacy.

At the time there was a big backlash against the pressure Clinton was perceived to be putting on Israel.

Gore's advisors were pretty crass on the ethnic coalition: they appointed Donna Brazile as campaign manager and then pretty much ignored the Black vote; they pandered to the Cubans in Miami over Elian Gonzoles (breaking with the Clinton administration's policy of returning the boy to his father), not seeming to realize that Cubans don't vote like Chicanos and Puerto Ricans; and they chose Lieberman as running mate.

You might recall that there was talk in the Gore campaign of getting an ethnic/political three-fer: choosing William Cohen (Clinton's Defense Secretary who is a liberal Republican, is Jewish and is married to an African American woman), before they came up with Joementum.