Why did Gore pick Liberman in 2000?

Does anyone have a good answer?

Hell, I have no idea...

My family always votes Dem anyway.

...where a largely Jewish community appeared to have overwhelmingly supported Buchanan. When interviewed later, most of them thought they voted for Al Gore.

No one could have tampered with the votes...

no- make that ILLEGAL Ballot!
All the candidates for a single office were to appear on the same page. Not so with Teresa LePore's poorly designed ballot.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/palmbeach.recount/

WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- Voters confused by Palm Beach County's butterfly ballot cost Al Gore the presidency, The Palm Beach Post concluded Sunday.

The newspaper's review of discarded ballots found Gore lost 6,607 votes when voters marked more than one name on the county's "butterfly ballot." A leading Republican called the finding "speculation."

Voters who marked Gore's name and that of another candidate totaled more than 10 times the winning margin Bush received to claim Florida's 25 electoral votes and the White House, the Post concluded. The newspaper said the result was "an indictment of the butterfly ballot, political experts and partisan observers agree."

The newspaper's review of the overvotes found 5,330 Palm Beach County residents invalidated their ballots by punching chads for Gore and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan. The hole voters punched for Buchanan was located just above Gore's on the two-page ballot.

droopy dog Lieberman would send you screaming in the other direction in a hurry.

...was a huge mistake.

he was pissed at Clinton, wanted to distance himself from him, and he was convinced by the dreaded "political consultants" that it was a good move.

I remember having a huge WTF moment when I heard it, almost as big as when Poppy picked potato boy.

Even now, it would be really interesting to watch Gore vs Clinton in action ~ I've read that there's still a lot of bitterness.

Gore was the VP and there wasn't any reason not to pick him. Lieberman was pure DLC. The DLX picked Kerry. The DLC will pick Clinton (whether for or against).

But Gore did try to distance himself from Clinton. I hope he does it his way (without the handlers) if he runs again ~ in any case, the DLC already has its candidates.

Actually he was following the I'm-not-Clinton strategy. Lieberman, Mr. traditional values, was a way of underscoring it. Of course he should have followed the I'm-Clinton-Jr. strategy.

Why was he once pro life?

:crazy:

he would have to be a social conservative to get elected.

Bush ran on the premise of "restoring honor and integrity to the White House" after eight years of the Clinton Witch hunt, followed by the Lewinsky Scandal. The MCM only carried Bush's talking points for the better part of two years prior to the selection of 2000 with their relentless slander against Al Gore's integrity, I believe motivated in large part because he empowered us when he championed the Internet.

The only caveat, I would add to your post is that you can be a social moderate and get elected in Tennessee, except under extraordinary circumstances and the nineties were just that.

Never liked the guy...he just seemed cheesy...and now we all know why...

even though Gore was DLC, he may not have been reflexively obedient enough to big business, so they wanted Lieberman as a commissar to look over his shoulder and as their insurance policy in case Gore got some wacky idea that he was actually in charge.

:evilgrin:

A lot of my friends/colleagues voted for Nader simply because they disliked Lieberman.

I'm a resident of Florida, so that stings twice.

He stumped for NAFTA in 93.

I don't think that bill would have passed in its eventual form if it had been Gore/Clinton instead of the other way around.

I know the unions were against it and we should have listened to them. Still, with Clinton and Jimmy Carter supporting it and the way they explained it, I sure seemed like a good idea to me. Point of fact, my wife's company exports american made stuff to Mexico and NAFTA makes that a lot easier for them than it was before.

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

It never made any sense to me. Seems the smart(er) strategy for someone running a left/right of center campaign would be to choose a running mate who is further on your side of the political spectrum. That way, he/she can really help in solidifying the base for you while you run a general election campaing. But, what do I know. I'm just a voter.

There were several factors, but mostly Lieberman filled a demographic need and also had been an ally of Clinton and Gore for many years.

Gore was trying to dodge being labeled with Clinton's scandals. Lieberman was known for his "moral character," and had spoken out against Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. That whole thing was a set-up, of course. The Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton, so the Dems started a push to censure him instead. Lieberman, a long time Clinton ally, was picked as the voice because of his closeness to Clinton and because of his moral stature. So he coordinated with Clinton, waited until Clinton was out of the country, then made a speech expressing his grave disappointment with Clinton, complete with hyperbolic rhetoric about the shame Clinton had brought to the White House. At the end he called for a censure of Clinton, then specifically rejected calls for impeachment.

Some people misunderstood, but that was all a strategy to avoid impeachment talks. Lieberman and Clinton even coordinated notes the night before.

So Gore was trying to avoid the scandal, and picked a Democrat who was already part of his loose circle of allies, and who was associated with opposing Clinton's scandal.

On top of that, Lieberman was Jewish, and this gave Gore a stronger chance in Florida, and helped hold the Jewish voters who were starting to drift Republican. It was noted early on the Florida was likely to be THE battleground state.

Then there were lesser issues--Lieberman was likable, had a laid back personality (both things Gore supposedly wasn't), and had a real enthusiasm for the job. Plus, he was a moderate, and Gore was running as a populist, so it balanced the sides of the party to some degree.

There have been a few insider stories to Gore's process and decision on Lieberman, but that's the highlight of it all. It wasn't a bad pick. Demographically it was shrewd. Lieberman was a decent moderate Dem with some liberal tendencies. He turned into Satan when Bush started dropping bombs, but that was after the election.

Yes. A long answer but one I hope people read. Good analysis.

Gore should have picked Kerry, who was on his short list.

I think Gore was worried that Kerry just duplicated his own positives.

Even now, Lieberman is mostly wacko on foreign policy issues, and some of that has to do with his heritage. He's Jewish, and he translates that into being pro-Israel. On other issues, he's still as liberal as many moderate Dems, and more than some.

Not defending him. He lost me completely after his primary loss, and even some before that.

that Gore's choice was heralded as groundbreaking at the time.

1.) Gore needed a way to get the media report something other than the b.s. stories about Gore being a serial exaggerator who'd lick a toilet to become President. The media LOVED Joe Lieberman in a totally uncritical way. They still do. When Gore selected Lieberman, he got a whole week's worth of positive press, and he got it right before the convention. If he hadn't gotten that good press, if the media had spent the week before the convention trashing Gore in the same way, would Gore have gained so much in the polls from his convention speech? (Gore began the 2000 campaign 20 points behind "any Republican". Before selecting Lieberman and giving his acceptance speech, Gore had cut that down to 10 points. After his convention speech, Gore pulled even with Bush.)

There was no other potential running mate who would have gotten that kind of positive press. Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt were being discussed as the "safe" choices prior to Gore's announcement - - and the press had already decided that a "safe" choice by Gore would be another troubling sign of Gore being unfit to be President.

2.) Gore was being relentlessly (falsely) attacked as a racist by the Nader campaign and Nader's high profile supporters like Micheal Moore. Their spin before the announcement was that Gore would pick another white guy corporate sell out like Kerry, Edwards or Gephardt, proving that Gore was a closet racist. Folks should keep in mind that, unlike other years, Nader and his supporters got huge amounts of TV interview time, especially on cable. Even after Gore picked a Jewish running mate - - and the media made a big deal out of the fact that Lieberman was the first Jew to run on a major party ticket - - Michael Moore attacked Gore for not choosing a minority for a running mate.

Combating the idea that Gore was a racist was essential for victory in the swing states. Because (at least back in 2000) white, middle class, suburbanites don't follow news about minority issues. But the majority of them did not want to support candidates who were bigots. So a smart Republican strategist could always undermine a Democratic candidate by getting somebody "credible" to publicly accuse that Dem of being a bigot.

3.) Gore is committed to expanding opportunities for all Americans. Picking a minority member for his running mate was a statement about how personally committed he was (and is) to civil rights.

4.) Gore and the rest of the Dem party knew that it was extremely unlikely that Congress was going to be go Dem in 2000. Lieberman was one of the few Democrats who could get Republicans to the bargaining table and get them to compromise on legislation. The Republicans in Congress loved Lieberman as much as the press did. Lieberman would have been invaluable getting Gore's agenda through a hostile congress.

5.) Picking Lieberman was an extremely popular thing for Gore to do. The historical revisionism about this on DU is pretty sad. I urge folks to go back and read the polls. Here's one example, from late August 2000:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/21/cnn.poll/index.html

Effect of running mate choice Joe Lieberman on your vote:

More likely for Gore 54%

Less likely for Gore 22

No difference 19

Sampling error: +/-3% pts

6.) Gore consistently seeks out the opinions of people with different opinions than he holds. It's incredibly bad management to surround yourself with folks who all already think exactly the same way that you do. It leads to the kind of poor decision making that we get from the Bush admin. They don't ever listen to anybody who's even an inch to their left, and the country is a disaster because of it. If we had a liberal President - - even somebody as incredible as Gore - - their decision making is only enhanced by having outspoken conservatives inside their administration, offering their criticism of policies before they are finalized. I know it doesn't seem like it after the Bush admin, but conservatives do have good ideas sometimes.

7.) As others have pointed out, Gore did not endorse Lieberman in 2004. Instead, he endorsed Dean mainly because of his opposition to the war and populist programs. The chances of Gore choosing Lieberman for his running mate again are zero.

...then I'd have to say it was something related to Tecumsah's curse. Starting with William Henry Harrison, (Tippecanoe, and Tyler, too), all presidents who were elected in years ending in "0" died in office.

Vengeance for what the American Government did to the Native American tribes in (I think) the Blackhawk War, which Abraham Lincoln faught in.

Lieberman was the stalking horse for the same Powers-That-Be that brought us the JFK, RFK and MLK assasinations, in the event of a Gore victory.

is not a GOOD answer but it is THE answer.

And Holy Joe pushed the republicans out of the way as he was running to the podium of the Senate to The First Senator to denounce Bill Clinton for a blowjob. For this act of "conscience", Joe symbolically demonstrated the break of Gore from the Clinton White House.

Lieberman would be the prohibitive Democratic favorite in the 2008 election. Something to ponder...

And given Lieberman's 2004 campaign, I think it's pretty hard to argue that Lieberman would be the exception to the rule.

and to tell the RNC what the Dems were up to, inside info goes a long way to defeating ones opponent...the republicans were taking no chances they had to get Bush in there for the corporations and it came down to them stealing it in Florida and running to their stacked Supreme Court to stop the counting...because they knew once in, it would just be fixing elections and cruising from now on, and they have! So they made sure they had Lieberman to just go easy on Bush & Cheney & inside info...The republican Lieberman was perfect and they got him on the ticket...Just because Lieberman had a "D" behind his name...anyone with brains can see what party he has been loyal to...The republican party even paid for his re-election to the senate last year.

Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to come out publicly with revulsion about Clinton's indiscretions. Cowed by the pissy umbrage against Clinton's dalliances, Gore did everything he could to distance himself from Clinton. It was transparent, disloyal, cowardly and just plain stupid; not that many were really all that upset about Clinton's infidelity, and there were certainly many who truly approved of what the man was trying to do. (Even though Clinton did as much harm as good by dragging the party to the right, he still had much support.)

It was nothing short of foolish to decline Clinton's help during the campaign, and the teaming with that sniveling, pantywaist, goody-two-shoes, whack-job fundamentalist Quisling Joe was more than just a slap in the face. Gore proved his political ineptitude with this move, and it's obvious.

The fact that Clinton was unfaithful to his wife was the least important part of the Lewinsky affair. Important to Hillary - no doubt - but not really a problem for me personally.

More important was the fact that the President is the CEO of the Whitehouse and he should not abuse his position of power that he has over subordinates - including powerless, young, vulnerable star-struck interns like Monica ... in the workplace !!!

If you are a manager and you get caught messing around like that in the office, your job is at risk.

Even worse was the fact that Clinton tried to cover it up by making misleading statements.

Probably the worst thing from my perspective is that Clinton handed ammo over to the Republican side.

Bush's promise to restore integrity to the office of the Presidency was one of his best lines in the 2000 campaign. It must have earned him a lot of extra support, and it was probably one of the reasons why early in the campaign - Bu$h was about 20 points ahead of Gore in some national polls.

So Joe Lieberman was right to condemn Bill Clinton's misbehavior and his attempts to mislead the public.

And Gore was right to look for a way to send out a clear signal that he disapproved of Clinton's misbehavior.

At the time (2000) most people thought Lieberman was just another mainstream moderate Democrat.

She's hardly a victim; she's a calculating tramp intoxicated with power. Clinton's also a very magnetic personality.

Yes, your points are very well made about diddling with subordinates, and the deception is not to be taken lightly either; this is pure Clinton: he's veracity challenged. I've always had a lot of problems with him and his politics, but his personality is quite flawed too; his instinct when confronted with a difficult situation is to lie. "What are you going to do this morning, Bill?" "Oh, I think I'll get up, have a cup of coffee and do some lyin'."

Still, he DID quibble in a lawyerly way with the term sexual relations; as far as we know, they never had intercourse. Having said that, though, it's very misleading at the least.

Your most valid point is that she was a subordinate, yet I don't think she was working directly for him at the time of the affair, so it's more akin to a CEO having a fling with a worker at a subsidiary; it's not quite workplace abuse.

I don't feel that Lieberman was a pure innocent here; I felt at the time and still feel that he was grandstanding and playing narcissistic goody two-shoes games. Gore could have repudiated the behavior and still used Clinton's campaigning skill and tirelessness to his advantage; this showed Gore to be rather spineless to me. The reactionaries who'd spend 8 years of rabid witch-hunting cowed him to distance him from Clinton in every way. Clinton had some major accomplishments, and this should have been more emphasized, but Gore was suckered into avoiding the man completely.

As for Lieberman, he's a very mixed bag. His voting record on worker's rights and the environment are admirable, but he's also in the pocket of the accounting industry and helped quash action against Enron. He's a moralist who'd enact ridiculous tight-assed censorship if he had a chance, and he'd get even more religion into government if he could. Then there's Israel. I truly feel that he's more loyal to Israel than he is to the United States, and this is not a good thing. He would let them do ANYTHING, and feels we should spring for it. The saber-rattling against Iran is beyond just dangerous, and it belies a deep selfishness and feeling of privilege.

Yes, your points are well taken, but I dispute your assessment of Joe's character, and don't think the workplace dominance issue is quite as cut-and-dried.

The idea that "using Bill Clinton more" would have helped Gore is not supported by the polling done in 2000. Clinton's impeachment was a very recent event and Clinton was deeply, personally disliked at that time. Even in 2004, the Kerry campaign struggled to find a way to use him which did not loose more votes than it won.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

From the 2000 exit polls

Those with an unfavorable view of Clinton as a person
US 60% TN 62% AR 61% FL 56%
Those who approve of Clinton’s performance as President and like him as a person
US 35% TN 33% AR 33% FL 37%
Those who disapprove of Clinton’s performance as President and disapprove of him as a person
US 39% TN 45% AR 42% FL 37%


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/13/cnn.poll/

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 11-12

Does Vice President Al Gore's ties with President Bill Clinton make you feel more favorably toward Gore or less favorably toward Gore, or do they have no effect on your view of him?

More favorable 7%
Less favorable 32
No effect 60

Sampling error: +/-3% pts


CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 11-12

If the Democratic nomination for president were still being decided and if Bill Clinton could run again, would you rather see the Democrats nominate Al Gore or Bill Clinton for president?

Gore Clinton
Democrats 48% 46%
Independents 52 29
Republicans 58 12


Sampling error: +/-6% pts

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 11-12

Please tell me whether you think Al Gore, if elected in November, would do a better job, about the same, or not as good a job as President Clinton in handling the job of president.

Economy Moral Leadership
Better 16% 58%
Worse 17 12
Same 60 27

Sampling error: +/-3% pts


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/06/cnn.time.poll/index.html

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 4-5
Favorable Ratings
Former President Bush 73%
Hillary Clinton 45
Bill Clinton 42

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 4-5
Whose Opinions Do You Respect More?
Former President Bush 61%
Bill Clinton 34

Sampling error: +/-3% pts
CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 4-5
Who Would You Vote For?
Former President Bush 53%
Bill Clinton 42

Sampling error: +/-3% pts

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/11/cnn.poll/index.html

CNN/TIME POLL
August 9-10
What is your opinion of Vice President Gore?

Yes No
Too close to Clinton 49% 45%
Strong leader 42 49
Someone you admire 40 56

Sampling error: +/-3% pts

CNN/TIME POLL
August 9-10
Is Gore too close to President Clinton?

Now 1999
Yes 49% 55%
No 45 37

Sampling error: +/-3% pts

CNN/TIME POLL
August 9-10
As a presidential candidate, do you think Al Gore is more a candidate in his own right, that is based on his qualifications, or more a creation of Bill Clinton choosing him as vice president?

Creation of Clinton 45%
Based on his own
qualifications 42

Sampling error: +/-3% pts

Gore was worried he looked too liberal, so he picked a conservative dem to balance out the ticket.