Guardian UK: Holy Joe (Lieberman) strikes again

[marmar]

Holy Joe strikes again
US elections 2008: Joe Lieberman's endorsement of John McCain matters little in New Hampshire - but a lot in Washington
Michael Tomasky



December 18, 2007 5:00 PM


The straightforward accounting of Joe Lieberman's endorsement of John McCain for president goes something like this. Maverick Democrat (Lieberman, who isn't actually a Democrat anymore but an independent) backs maverick Republican because both buck their party's establishments, and because they agree on Iraq.

True as far as it goes, which is not very far. I suspect the real meaning of the endorsement is this: it signals that leading neocons have concluded that Rudy Giuliani's campaign is tanking, and they've decided to pin their last best hopes on McCain.

Leiberman, as we know, is one of the senate's foremost hawks, about Iraq and about the general fight against terrorism. He is otherwise very liberal, which is kind of a funny aside - if I were Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee right now, I might be mocking McCain for accepting the endorsement of a man who supports abortion rights, gay rights, excessive taxing and spending and a motherlode of other liberal positions. But be that as it may, Lieberman was not choosing his candidate on the basis of any of these things; had that been the case, he would have chosen someone from his erstwhile party.

So Lieberman's endorsement was all about foreign policy. He has said as much (he also acknowledged on MSNBC that he endorsed the only candidate among the 17 running who asked for his support!). On the basis of foreign policy, was it a foregone conclusion that Lieberman would have backed McCain?

No, it wasn't. It's my bet that Lieberman toyed for a while with the idea of endorsing Giuliani. And it's also my bet, more importantly, that Lieberman wouldn't make this move without consulting a few key friends in places like the American Enterprise Institute, the neocon wing of the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Giuliani and McCain would clearly be considered the best candidates from these groups' point of view, and that Lieberman moved now seems a plausible sign that these groups feel that Giuliani's star has faded (I'm not sure that's correct, but it's an increasingly widely held view in Washington).

Is Lieberman worth anything to McCain? Maybe a little in New Hampshire. Independents can vote in the Republican and Democratic primaries in that state, and they make up about 40% of the electorate. Arguably, Lieberman represents the nonpartisan voter who likes a hawkish foreign policy and a more liberal domestic policy.

But how many New Hampshire voters fit that profile? It's hard to find polling, but in general, it can fairly be described as an anti-war state that is trending blue. In the state's two congressional races in 2006, anti-war Democrats defeated incumbent Republicans, an exacta that is rare indeed in US politics. The state's lower legislative body went to Democratic control for the first time since the 19th century. And the kinds of Democrats New Hampshire is electing can't exactly be described as Liebermanesque.

So Lieberman may make little or no difference to McCain in New Hampshire. Where Lieberman matters is where he has always mattered, which is in Washington, where he is beloved by two constituencies, the neocon foreign-policy brain trust and the establishment media. McCain and Lieberman did lots of cable TV yesterday. Unfortunately for McCain, cable TV hosts don't cast very many votes.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2007/12/holy_joe_strikes_again.html