Remember all that talk about Barack Obama's Jewish problem? I do. And Joe Lieberman was supposed to help McCain capitalize on all those problems. There's only one problem with that theory:
Only 37 percent of Jews view the Connecticut Independent in a favorable light compared to 48 percent who have a negative perception. As for Obama, 60 percent of Jews view him favorably while 34 percent view him unfavorably.
Sam Stein inexplicably goes on to note that if Barack Obama has a Jewish problem, than Joe Lieberman is "in monumental trouble." Sam didn't get the memo--black people always have problems. Black people are "monumental trouble" incarnate. Every time a white guy eats a steak, some black kid somewhere develops heart disease.
Anyway, my point is that Lieberman is now entering that territory where--much like Al Sharpton--he gets gravitas for representing a group of people, who, in reality, have decidely mixed feelings about him. Lieberman poses a Jesse Jackson problem. Both Lieberman and Jackson's greatest appeal is to a portion of the base which thier respective candidate have already locked down. Furthermore, both are repellants to other members of thier respective candidates coalition, who are far less wedded to them.
The same white voters who wouldn't support Barack in the primary, are the same white voters who hate Jackson. The same right-wing evangelicals who hate McCain for his refusal to completely bow before thier social agenda, are the same right-wing evangelicals who despise Joe Lieberman's support for abortion rights. Lieberman's main right-wing accolade is his support of the war--but that's also McCain's main right-wing accolade. Obama is smart enough to see that Jesse can't help him. But because media love the facade of bipartisanship, and don't hate Lieberman anywhere near as much as they hate Jesse, McCain hasn't ben forced to take a hard look at how much Lieberman is helping. My guess is not much.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I think this is correct and insightful.
The Beltway media establishment adores Lieberman because he bucks his party leadership (which always makes their knees tremble - see also McCain, John) and does so in the name of a war they all supported. They NEEDED him to beat Ned Lamont, and they were very invested in his eventual victory. They projected their own insecurities (their fear and jealousy of the crazy bloggers) onto that Senate race, and he became their guy.
Somewhere along the way, they forgot that Joe Lieberman has never been a successful or important national political figure. His greatest accomplishment was an unsuccessful vice presidential run, which was followed four years later by a dead-on-arrival presidential campaign (the legendary 18-way tie for 12th or whatever it was). I almost think the Sharpton analogy is too generous--Sharpton has some semblance of a national audience. Is there any evidence that Lieberman does? Does anyone outside of Connecticut and Washington, DC really give a damn about this guy?
If I were a Presidential candidate, and you told me I could choose between the endorsement of a mid-level political figure like Tim Kaine or the endorsement of Joe Lieberman, I wouldn't even think about it for a nanosecond--I'd go with Kaine.
...to flesh out my point, you can quantify what a surrogate like Kaine would bring to the table--a presence in an important state. Lieberman doesn't bring anything quantifiable--just a lot of blather from Beltway pundits that most voters don't read.
"Sharpton has some semblance of a national audience."
I was at one of the many anti-war rallies in DC, you know, the ones where hundreds of thousands of people come out and there are no news cameras anywhere? Yeah those. So there is a speaker, and I am too far to hear him, but I hear a tremendous roar, and when I say roar, its like nothing you've heard before. I look around like what the hell is going on? Did the shit hit the fan? No. Al Sharpton was giving a speech against the war and apparently he hit a chord that resonated with the crowd. He does have some kind of national stature, or at least he did.
The same white voters who wouldn't support Barack in the primary, are the same white voters who hate Jackson.
I'm not sure these are equivalent groups. I'm sure the "no Barack, no matter what" people also hate Jackson, but I'm equally sure that there are significant numbers of middle of the road voters who dislike Jesse Jackson, but consider themselves to non-racist and are willing to vote for a black candidate under the right circumstances. Of course, they set the bar higher for a black candidate than a white, which in my book means they actually ARE racist, but they're not so vehemently racist that they won't consider Obama (or maybe they are just that disaffected with the Republicans).
Obama was smart to ignore Jackson until his hand was forced. This allowed him to break with Jackson in a way that didn't hurt him with Jackson's fans, as it was seen as being initiated by Jackson, but it may have helped with that segment of the Jackson haters who are not unreachable.
Well, as a single data point, I'm a white voter that voted for Hillary, but I don't hate Jackson. That doesn't mean I endorse everything he says, but hating him would be like hating the tree outside my window. It's been there all my life. Sometimes branches fall of it, and it's a problem, but really, it's a nice tree, and I'm glad its around.
And of course, I'm not one of those threatening to take my vote and stay home because of Hillary. I'm kind of mad at Barack because of stuff Barack has done; I'm sure you know which things. So the campaign contributions are kind of on hold, though the vote is still with him.
The fundamental analysis is sound though. Joe Lieberman has a much bigger Jewish problem than Barack Obama. That makes my day, maybe my week.
"The Beltway media establishment adores Lieberman because he bucks his party leadership (which always makes their knees tremble - see also McCain, John) and does so in the name of a war they all supported. They NEEDED him to beat Ned Lamont, and they were very invested in his eventual victory. They projected their own insecurities (their fear and jealousy of the crazy bloggers) onto that Senate race, and he became their guy."
Yes, the media doesn't get soft-kneed for people who break ranks to oppose things which the elites want. Byrd, for example, was a lonely figure of courage, and got no respect for it.
There's a joke which says that 'bipartisan'=100% of the Republicans + Joe Lieberman. That's Joe's job, being the prime Quisling of the Democratic Party.
I sort of look at that as a plus for democracy and freedom of thought- Jews aren't voting for Lieberman just becasue he's Jewish, whereas Obama is getting the great majority of Black voters on ethnic identity alone. Me, I'm Jewish, and live in Michigan, but there's no way I'd vote for Carl Levin ;-)
Oh, please, mike, this junk again? I'm sure there are Jewish politicians who poll great among Jewish voters, and Lieberman probably polled great when he was Al Gore's running mate, and there are certainly black politicians with much less support than Obama (how are Cynthia McKinney's numbers?). And I'm sure a Jewish candidate for president with Obama's political gifts & a serious shot at winning would have incredible support. Lieberman doesn't because he vocally supports policies, & increasingly, a party & presidential campaign, that an overwhelming majority of Jewish voters oppose. (Some of it goes back further than that--some liberal Jews have problems with the Orthodox).
I doubt Lieberman either helps or hurts McCain very much, personally (then again, I doubt Jackson hurts Obama very much either--the differing coverage is probably due to (1) the media's belief that black people talking about race are "playing the race card," & it's illegitimate, (2) the bipartisanship fetish & the preference for hawkishness).
One thing no one noticed during the primary: while it's true that Obama's margin over McCain among Jewish voters in the polls is significantly less than Kerry's over Bush, so was Hillary Clinton's. And that's not because Jewish voters have a personal problem with her. I think it's because Jewish voters have less of a problem with McCain than with Bush--partly because of residual maverick vibes, partly because most Jewish voters really, really, really don't like the Christian right or anyone on anything resembling Christian religious crusade. It's the flip side of evangelicals' frostier relationship with McCain.
I think one aspect that's been overlooked thus far in this discussion is that Joe Lieberman was created in a CT political environment that elected Lowell Weicker as an Independent for Governor, two years after he was upset by Lieberman for his Senate seat. (Weicker went on to endorse Bill Bradley and Howard Dean in 2000 and 2004 respectively, hardly the type of Senate Republican we've come to expect, even in the northeast, besides Lincoln Chafee.)
In other words, CT's political climate was always one of Javits-style liberal Republicans, which I think makes it more understandable how a fairly conservative Democrat in Lieberman could win over say, Ned Lamont.
I'm with Jake H. Until he reared his ugly head as a VERY poor VP candidate, most Jews never heard of him and his, "Less violence on TV, more violence in the Holy Land!" policy goals.
Putting him in the same league as Sharpton gives him too much credit for his profile. He is also more of a lighting rod for War Mongering than the usual American-Jewish issues. True, his motivation is ostensibly Israel based (what could possibly make Israel more secure than endless war on it's doorstep?) but it's not like he runs out in front of the cameras anytime a Nativity Scene in put on a town square, or someone spray paints swastikas on a synagogue.
That said, I've hated him since I heard of him. He's one of those Jews that make very secular Jews like me mutter anti-semitic slurs at him, because he make us ALL look bad. To tie in with an earlier post, HE makes me wish for a true Jewish equivalent of, "Negro, please." Heeb, please? Nah, bad meter and rhyme - you see my predicament! ;-)
I'd take this poll with a grain of salt, it was taken by a self-described "progressive jewish" organization, which hates Lieberman and loves Obama. Their poll questions have been criticized by other jewish groups see: (http://www.ou.org/public_affairs/weblog_single/42538)
and http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1003097.html)
I'd point out that obama while polling over 50% in the jewish community is polling well under kerry and Gore's numbers, and the numbers of most democrats.
Meanwhile, Senator Joe will be sharing a stage with Rev. Hagee this week.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/22/lieberman/index.html
Some kind words from the Senator from last year:
"I would describe Pastor Hagee with the words the Torah uses to describe Moses, he is an "Eesh Elo Kim," a man of God because those words fit him; and, like Moses he has become the leader of a mighty multitude in pursuit of and defense of Israel."
Purely anecdotal, but when my wife's jewish family was supporting the Gore-Lieberman ticket, the emphasis was definitely on Al Gore. Lieberman wasn't all that popular then.
"I'd point out that obama while polling over 50% in the jewish community is polling well under kerry and Gore's numbers, and the numbers of most democrats. "
Only because McCain is more popular among Jews (as he is among Democrats in general) than Bush is. Obama does slightly, and only slightly, worse than Hillary Clinton polling among Jews.
The whole thing about Obama's Jewish problem? Nothing but racism on the nightly news. Shocking, I know, that there might be racism on the nightly news.