CAPITOL LETTER

The Lieberman Lesson

Keeping the independent aboard shows Obama's pragmatism.

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Lieberman lucked out. In any other election cycle, he'd be doomed. It wasn't so much that the former Democratic and now independent senator from Connecticut supported John McCain. That was forgivable. But blasting Barack Obama at the Republican convention was crossing a bridge too far, a bridge to nowhere. Right after the election, it looked like good ole Joe would be getting his pink slip as chairman of the Senate homeland-security committee. But word went out from Chicago that the president-elect was not interested in recriminations, and the lions laid down with the lambs, and Sen. Joe Lieberman was once again back in the good graces of his fellow Democrats.

My Take
Follow your favorite NEWSWEEK columnists

Customize the Newsweek homepage to feature the latest word from your favorite columnists.

There's been a lot of partisan bickering about the war in Iraq, but as Obama seeks to build new coalitions in Congress on contentious issues like climate change, immigration reform and energy independence, Lieberman and McCain could turn out to be valuable allies. Fellow Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, making the case for Lieberman keeping his chairmanship, reminded Democrats in a closed-door session that Lieberman had gone to Mississippi in 1963 to register African-American voters, and even though he supported McCain, Obama's election is a significant moment for him, as it is for many millions of Americans.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 75 percent of Americans think Obama will be a good, even great president, far more than the 53 percent who voted for him. Those citizens may be responding in part to Obama's election-night victory speech quoting Abraham Lincoln: "We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break the bonds of our affection."

Obama has no patience for the ideological battles that have dominated our politics in recent decades. He won 60 percent of moderate voters, the highest share of that prized group since Richard Nixon's landslide re-election against George McGovern in '72. Democrats are once again a national party, and Obama can legitimately claim a mandate to govern. That's the good news; the bad news is that trust in government as measured in October was 17 percent, the lowest ever recorded in The New York Times/CBS News poll. "Skepticism is in the DNA of the American people. We were born in revolution and a lack of trust in King George," says Elaine Kamarck, coauthor with William Galston of a paper titled, "Change You Can Believe In Needs a Government You Can Trust."

The academic duo presented their findings at a Tuesday breakfast in the Washington offices of Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. Introducing them, Third Way's policy director, Jim Kessler, said the significant decline in trust, if not addressed, "has the potential to drown the progressive agenda in a sea of skepticism." Kamarck used a term borrowed from arms-control negotiators in calling for "confidence-building measures" to rebuild trust. She singled out legislation sponsored by Sens. James Webb and Claire McCaskill and passed by Congress earlier this year to create a Commission on War Contracting Accountability. She urged Obama to "take ownership" of the commission and go after war-related fraud and abuse, which sticks in the voters' craw every bit as much as those golden parachutes on Wall Street.

Obama campaigned on energy independence, stepping up investments in public infrastructure, increased focus on reforming education and making the turn to universal health care as fast as possible. Campaign promises are like promissory notes, and they're essential to rebuilding trust in government, says Galston, who was a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration. He vividly remembers writing out Clinton's campaign promises and pinning them up over his desk. They included a middle-class tax cut that Clinton failed to deliver. Galston, who is now at the Brookings Institution, is ambivalent about the merits of Obama's proposed tax cut, but says, "He will pay a huge price if he does not fulfill his promise."

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution

Using emotion to convince people to change.

Heaven Can Wait
Heaven Can Wait

A new book promises proof of eternal life.

The World's Biggest Foods
The World's Biggest Foods

Monster edibles from around America.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 11/23/2008 5:28:18 PM

    The Dems need him in the Caucus,especially if Minnesota and Georgia go Democrat. We have been down this road before. In 2000,it was Vermonts ''Jumpin Jim'' Jeffords,who left the GOP becoming an Indpendant and sided with the Democrats handing temporary control of the Senate over to them.[Clift treated him as a hero,however,and did not deal the kind of dross on him that she now metes out to Lieberman]. Ostricize Lieberman,and he goes into the GOP ranks perhaps for good,and will act as a foil to Democrat machinations.

  • Posted By: TomTraubert @ 11/23/2008 5:37:07 AM

    Isn't it "lay"? As in the lions LAY down with the lambs?
    In the strictest grammatical sense, 'lie' is an intransitive verb, whereas 'lay' is transitive. Conceptually, 'lie' is something you do to yourself, and 'lay' is something you do to yourself, and 'lay' is something you do to something/someone else.
    Word Example
    lie You look tired. Lie down and rest.
    lay Lay down the keyboard and step away from the computer!
    The past tense, however, gives many people fits. The past tense of 'lie' is 'lay', and the past tense of 'lay' is 'laid'.
    Word Example
    lay She lay in the shade, remembering her youth.
    laid He laid the infant in the crib.
    http://www.planetoid.org/grammar_for_geeks/lie_vs_lay_vs_laid.html

  • Posted By: herzliebster @ 11/23/2008 1:38:21 AM

    The" Democrats" didn't "try to oust" Lieberman. He was challenged in a primary, with the defining issue being Iraq, and lost, fair and square. Normally, when a politician loses the primary and hence the nomination for another term, they accept defeat and go home. Lieberman acted as if he had somehow been deprived of his constitutional right to keep his seat, and ran as an independent. The Republicans then nominated a complete nobody and basically decline to campaign for their own nominee. Ever since, Lieberman has behaved like a Republican.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now