The Strange Legacy of Joe Lieberman

Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) with 
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT)

This past week, former US Senator Joe Lieberman passed away.  Lieberman served in the Senate for 24 years, and during that time, he served as a largely progressive voice on a number of issues.  His biggest legislative achievement was the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in 2010 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2001 (both of which he did with fellow New Englander Susan Collins).  But today, Lieberman is known for two things.  First, was his rightward lurch thanks to his views on the Iraq War, which eventually cost him the Democratic Senate nomination (though not his seat).  The second, though, was the stuff of political lore, and to me is far more interesting-the question of whether or not Al Gore, by picking Joe Lieberman, cost the Democrats the White House in 2000.

We're going to focus on that today.  Politically, I have always found Joe Lieberman to be frustrating.  He was not Joe Manchin (where these views felt particularly advantageous), but was far more a Kyrsten Sinema situation where he craved attention more than being a particularly conservative figure on anything other than national security, and inexplicably given New England's long history of progressivism on government programs, healthcare (the irony being if you look for it, Sinema early in her career HATED Lieberman...and then slowly became him).  Lieberman betraying the party by not honoring the wishes of the Democrats' who put him in office in 2006 continues to piss me off.  But this isn't new, and it's not something most Democrats disagree on-pretty much every proud Democrat dislikes Lieberman even if some will acknowledge he did do some good things in office (again, similar to Sinema).

But the vice presidential question is fascinating, because it begs two questions: 1) why did Al Gore pick Joe Lieberman in 2000, and 2) was there someone better to pick?  Political questions, much like looking back on Oscar races you weren't around for, are not as easy as they are with 20/20 hindsight, and that's true here.  2000 was the first political race I was old enough to remember and actively follow (even though I was not yet old enough to vote), so this article is a combination of both memory and research, but I can say that there are two things people get wrong in this conversation.

The first is around Lieberman being a "terrible choice" which was only clear in hindsight.  Whether or not he was the "best" choice or not, he definitely wasn't a terrible choice.  Gore's logic was pretty sound in 2000.  First, he wanted to pick someone who would distance himself from Bill Clinton.  Clinton was insanely popular in 2000, and surely would've won a third term had he run.  But in 2000, Gore's campaign was struggling on a few fronts.  Gore had disliked Clinton's moral politics, and assumed they'd be a liability if he linked to him too closely.  Clinton's choice of Gore in 1992 was a somewhat unconventional choice-they were both young Southerners, though Gore was considered to be more progressive than Clinton was, and conventional wisdom bore out that Clinton should've picked someone a bit older and from another geographic region of the country (like Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana or Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania, both of whom were top contenders).  Gore had been selected because Clinton (four years after Michael Dukakis had picked a more diverse running-mate than him geographically & in terms of age, and was outshone by him) wanted someone who would double down on what was best about him (youth, energy, & southern roots) while countering what was worst about him (his lack of foreign policy experience, and most importantly eight years later, his fidelity).

Gore was disgusted by how Clinton had handled the Monica Lewinsky affair.  A deeply devoted family man (though weirdly he, not Clinton, would eventually separate from his wife), he was embarrassed by what Clinton had done to the country with the scandal, and wanted a personal apology that he never got.  So he instead chose someone who was a critic of Clinton.  Campaigning against another devoted family man (George W. Bush) he wanted to be able to counter that image, and Lieberman's criticism of Clinton during the impeachment (more than any other Democratic member of the Senate, Lieberman stood out as being critical of Clinton even though he ultimately acquitted him), and it was a way of saying "there won't be any more Clinton scandals embarrassing the country."  This wasn't the right message (the country wanted four more years of Clinton, or at least the Clinton economy), but it wasn't a dumb one.

It's also worth noting something quite ironic that gets lost in this conversation-Lieberman was meant to court Jewish voters, which were a key constituency in (wait for it) Florida.  Lieberman was the first (and to date only) Jewish American to run on a major national party ticket, and by picking him, insiders assumed Gore's campaign would get a leg up in Florida (at the time the most important swing state prize on the map), specifically in Palm Beach County, home to Boca Raton (with a sizable Jewish population).  This bore out to some degree.  Gore got 400,000 more votes than Bill Clinton did in 1996 in Florida, 10% of them coming specifically from Palm Beach County; in 2000, Palm Beach County only had 7% of the state's population, so the county definitely batted above its station when it came to Democratic turnout.  The reality is-Lieberman did help with Jewish turnout, it just wasn't quite enough to win Florida.

So the question now becomes not whether Lieberman helped (he did), but whether or not someone might've helped more.  The usual focus is on Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who had spent years as the state's widely-admired governor and in 2000 was the state's most popular politician.  Graham makes a lot of sense, and according to some, he was on the long-list.  With Graham, two problems emerge.  The first is that Gore didn't consider him super closely (he is not considered to have been on the "short list"), perhaps because Graham is kind of quirky, and honestly might not have been a great choice for a national campaign for office (he's one of those "works well in their state, not nationally" sort of candidates that have become rarer in the age of social media).  Secondly, Graham would've cost the Democrats the Senate...just like Lieberman.

Then Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

It seems unthinkable now, but in 2000, Gore was totally willing to give up the Senate seat held by Lieberman to win the White House.  Lieberman ran for reelection to his seat, which made sense as an insurance policy for him, but also meant that if he won both offices, he'd have to give up his Senate seat and have Republican Gov. John Rowland replace him with a Republican.  In 2000, most Democrats didn't think they'd pull off the 4+ seat gain they'd need to take back the Senate, but Democrats ended up on top in tight contests in Washington, Michigan, & Missouri, which meant they had 50 seats...Graham & Lieberman being on the ticket would've sacrificed the Senate even if Graham gets you Florida...and President Gore.

So instead it's time to look at other people on the shortlist.  Senators John Kerry (MA) has a similar issue Graham/Lieberman (Republican governors), and while Evan Bayh (IN) & John Edwards (NC) had Democratic governors (so they'd be fine), they also didn't come from swing states that might've helped Gore get to 270.  Sen. Tom Harkin (IA) had a Democratic governor and came from a swing state...but one that Gore managed to win, so he's no help.  Dick Gephardt did come from a swing state Gore lost (in 2000, Missouri was one of the closer contests that Bush won), but he wasn't a statewide office-holder...there's no proof he could actually win the state.  No, the key was always the seventh name on the short list: Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.

In retrospect, Jeanne Shaheen was whom Al Gore should've picked for his White House run.  In 2000, Shaheen was governor of New Hampshire, and had won a sizable victory in 1998, enough so that you could claim that she could deliver the state, which Gore only lost by just over a point.  With New Hampshire, Gore hits 271 votes in the electoral college (I'm going to assume that the DC elector who protested against a lack of voter representation in Congress changes his mind in this scenario given how they'd be a vote for a win, but even without him this still becomes 270, enough to win).  Shaheen doesn't cost the Democrats a Senate seat so the 50-50 Senate which Dick Cheney would tie break for the Democrats instead is tie-broken by Vice President Shaheen for the Democrats for the first two years of Congress.

This is where I usually leave this conversation, but it's worth noting that Shaheen might've galvanized turnout amongst female voters.  We saw that in 1992, when turnout amongst women was 9-points higher than men (the largest gap in the past 45 years) and that not only elected a lot of Democrats, it elected a lot of female Democrats.  Given that between 1984-2012, the lowest presidential turnout for women voters was in 2000, a female vice presidential candidate might've helped with turnout.  Even a turnout lift of a point or two to elect the first female vice president would've helped down-ballot.  The Democrats only needed six more seats in the House to win a majority in 2000; of the 9 seats that Democrats lost by 4-points or less for the House, six featured losing female candidates: Dianne Byrum (MI), Jody Wagner (VA), Lauren Beth Gash (IL), Linda Chapin (FL), Gerrie Schipske (CA), and Elaine Bloom (FL).  Shaheen carries those six women to victory, she becomes the VP that brought in a trifecta.  

And with that, the opportunity to implement Gore's extremely progressive agenda.  Gore's agenda in 2000 was pretty impressive for its time (like always, it is insane in retrospect that the media billed he and Bush as indistinguishable given how divergent their politics were).  His platform was very focused on protecting social security & Medicare, was a laundry list of longtime progressive reforms around education, prescription drugs, child care, & climate change (some of which we'd have to wait until the Biden years to get a chance to pass again), and of course he would've been a huge win for gay rights.  Gore was to Clinton's left on gay rights (particularly gays in the military), and made a point of pushing for judges that would back gay rights & abortion rights.  President Bush appointed 204 judges during that first term, including future Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, and had a spot in his administration for Brett Kavanaugh.  In a world where Gore is president...all of that goes away.  And though he didn't know it when he accepted that nomination, that will almost certainly be the most-remembered part of Joe Lieberman's legacy.