Obama’s responsibility for the Lieberman disaster

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Joe Lieberman is a disgrace–really, a wretched human being who is, as Ezra Klein perceptively noted, willing to allow people to die in order to demonstrate his personal pique against liberals.  I know of no moral calculus that allows for that kind of decision-making.

Yet progressives should still support this bill. As Paul Starr, a progressive health care expert if there ever was one, has explained, getting this bill done will mean moving the ball forward significantly, to the benefit of many low-income Americans. And: “…If Democrats succeed in getting a bill through Congress in the next several weeks, they can return to some of the issues in the reconciliation process next year. And at that point they won’t necessarily need to have Lieberman on board.”

OK. Better than nothing. But I am more than exasperated. And I know I’m not alone.

Now, on the one hand, it’s easy to see this situation as rather non-avoidable: the rules of the Senate were in place at the start of session, and those rules confer inordinate power upon conservative Democrats like Lieberman and Nelson. So he was always going to be part of the end-game for health care reform. Moreover, the White House has little leverage over a Senator who’s already not technically part of the party, and who, rumors persist, has no intention of running for reelection in 2012.

Lieberman, in effect, is on a kamikaze mission to destroy the progressive policy agenda. And no one can stop him.

But he didn’t have to be. Because someone–and many someones–could have stopped him.

Take a step back in time–not to the beginning of 2009, but the closing months of 2006. Ned Lamont had secured the Democratic nomination for Senate from Connecticut, sending Joe Lieberman to defeat and the isolated agony of starting his own party. At the time, Lamont’s victory was an enormous win for grassroots Democrats. No matter which candidate you preferred, the party had spoken. Lieberman was out, and Lamont was in. In a solidly blue state like Connecticut, this should have meant that Lieberman was on his way out of the Senate.

But he stayed alive. How did that happen? Above all else: the Democratic Party establishment never embraced Ned Lamont. Sure, they offered perfunctory endorsements, but the party simply never mobilized behind the guy. Barack Obama, for his part, was part of this trend. He sent money, and he sent emails–but he never fully committed himself (this Post piece is misleading–the help it describes is minimal at best–but gets the facts right). Did he even campaign in person on Lamont’s behalf? I’m not sure.

Perhaps he was playing it safe, choosing not to antagonize the man–Lieberman–who was likely to return to the Senate as a high-ranking member. Or perhaps Obama felt constrained by his earlier, full-throated endorsement for Lieberman only months before the primary vote. As reported by the Times:

“I know that some in the party have differences with Joe,” Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. “I’m going to go ahead and say it. It’s the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don’t agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman’s a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America.”

Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: “I am absolutely certain that Connecticut’s going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate.”

That time, people cheered loudly.

Unfortunately, and despite a later, muffled change of sides, the people followed Obama’s advice. Now we’re all paying the price.