The War Center

It's noteworthy how the McCain-Lieberman alliance is portrayed in the press as a kind of "centrist" independent fusion movement when the main thing that brings them together is their shared ardor for an unpopular war in Iraq. They both clearly see their views on Iraq and related matters as their most important priorities in public life, and the views they share on this subject are well to the right of the median Americans. And yet, they're in the center. One assumes that a Dennis Kucinich / Ron Paul lovefest on national security issues would, by contrast, be talking about as an example of "extreme" views being similar to one another.

The dynamic here clearly has less to do with public opinion than it does with establishmentarian ideas about what is and is not extreme. Washington, DC (or, even more so, the suburbs in Virginia where the power-brokers live) is a kind of place where heavy military equipment is advertised on the subway and defense contractors are a major engine of employment and economic growth. Which isn't to say that there's a direct, connect-the-dots relationship between the C27-J Spartan ad campaign and media portrayals of the Lieberman-McCain worldview, but I think it's important to understand that a kind of casual militarism permeates the atmosphere and anything that serves the cause of ever-growing procurement acquires a veneer of respectability.

Comments

Lieberman is attempting to help Clinton here.

The stronger McCain is in NH, the more it cuts into the Obama vote in NH.

McCain and Obama are both chasing after the exact same Independent votes. Check out the polls.

And given that big rally Clinton held for Lieberman on the eve of the '06 CT primary - a rally which helped to permanently estrange Clinton from the Party base - they certainly are holding a BIG favor to call in from Lieberman. (Not to mention the almost 4 decade closeness between Lieberman and the Clintons.)

Clinton benefits from this every bit as much as McCain does. This was Team Clinton's trump card in constructing their NH firewall against Obama.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 8:56 AM

"The stronger McCain is in NH, the more it cuts into the Obama vote in NH."

And the weirdest thing to me is that no one is covering this angle.

In current NH polling, Clinton beats Obama easily among Dem voters, while Obama beats Clinton easily among Indie voters.

Any good NH McCain performance is going to come from drawing Indie voters.

If I were Mark Penn, I'd be doing everything in my power to strengthen McCain.

And we know Lieberman owes the Clintons a big favor.

And no one is covering it. We need a better horserace political press.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 9:01 AM

Think of it this way:

If you're Joe Lieberman and you want to help Hillary Clinton, (or if you're Mark Penn, Lieberman's '04 campaign manager telling Lieberman how to help), what is your move?

Endorsing Clinton probably hurts her. Endorsing McCain definitely helps her by hurting Obama.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 9:03 AM

or, Lieberman simply likes McCain.

Posted by cleek | December 17, 2007 9:05 AM

"or, Lieberman simply likes McCain."

I think Lieberman does like McCain, and that this endorsement would be plausible if the Democratic race didn't exist.

But the Democratic race does exist. Two of Lieberman's closest political allies, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn, are rather high up in the Hillary Clinton for President campaign. Lieberman owes Clinton a big favor.

And if Lieberman wanted to help Clinton, he'd be doing exactly what he did today. Again, this helps Clinton significantly more than if he'd endorsed Clinton.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 9:11 AM

And environmental legislation, and immigration reform, and spending reform, etc. Not just the war, Matt.

I thought the whole idea of this crazy Senate thing was to serve as the cooling saucer of popular, albeit temporary opinion. You know, the kind of opinion bloggers whip up.

Posted by Kevin Sullivan | December 17, 2007 9:17 AM

"Washington, DC (or, even more so, the suburbs in Virginia where the power-brokers live) is a kind of place where heavy military equipment is advertised on the subway and defense contractors are a major engine of employment and economic growth."

Be careful Matt, someone will accuse you of being an Eisenhower-ist with all of that talk of the military-industrial complex.

Posted by d | December 17, 2007 9:22 AM

"or, Lieberman simply likes McCain."

The thing that weirds me out here is that everyone is writing about the McCain endorsement, and no one is making the Clinton link.

This post over at Swampland is typical:

This doesn't do much for McCain in Iowa, where the caucuses are dominated by partisans, but it could give him a boost after that. In New Hampshire, independents--who can vote in either primary--were the reason McCain won big in 2000. Until recently, it seemed that he couldn't count on that again, because all indications were that they would be choosing to vote in the Democratic primary this time.

But Tumulty doesn't mention who those Independents were planning on voting for in the Democratic primary (Obama) and who they weren't planning on voting for (Clinton).

Maybe everyone figures it out by this afternoon, but it's still odd to me that the obvious dots are not being connected.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 9:22 AM

I think the reason Lieberman endorsed "Nuke'em McCain" is that he likes him in a special man kind of way. If you get my drift.

Posted by Chris | December 17, 2007 9:23 AM

not only does the Democratic race exist, the inter-party race exists, too. if Lieberman's endorsement means anything, it moves votes towards Republicans, as he is telling us all that he prefers a Republican over any of the Dems.

of course it's debatable whether his endorsement means anything or not.

Posted by cleek | December 17, 2007 9:24 AM

Petey: The Politico is talking about it hurting Obama: (Sullivan linked to it in fact)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7418.html

"Noting Liberman’s appeal among unaffiliated voters in the 2004 Democratic primary, a top McCain aide said the Connecticut senator's backing "gives credence to, and more horsepower behind, our 'Independents for McCain' effort in New Hampshire and nationally."

Independents are an important factor in New Hampshire, and McCain, who won the state in 2000, is now depending on them.

The announcement looks like an effort to stem a stream of independents moving to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)"

Posted by d | December 17, 2007 9:27 AM

"not only does the Democratic race exist, the inter-party race exists, too."

Not right now it doesn't. For the next 6 weeks, only the primary races exist.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 9:27 AM

For the next 6 weeks, only the primary races exist.

luckily i wasn't drinking anything when i read that

Posted by cleek | December 17, 2007 9:31 AM

"Petey: The Politico is talking about it hurting Obama"

Thx for the link. But even they don't connect the dots of the Lieberman-Clinton closeness, and that as a possible motivation for the endorsement.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 9:32 AM

Not just the war, Matt...

Not true at all. Liberman's views line up pretty closely to Clinton's, except for one thing-- the war where even Clinton is insufficiently hawkish for Lieberman's taste. If Lieberman's endorsement were about the totality of a politician's views, including, but not limited to the war, which was merely a "weighted consideration," then Clinton would have been the obvious choice for Lieberman. However, if the war is the most important deciding factor in Lieberman's mind, McCain is the obvious choice.

On issues like the environment, immigration, and reproductive rights, Clinton and Lieberman line up much more closely than McCain and Lieberman -- except on the war

the kind of opinion bloggers whip up...

The blogosphere is a minor sliver of popular opinion and didn't have anything to do with turning the American people against the war. The blosophere simply acknowledged that reality a lot sooner than the rest of the mass media and political establishment did.

Posted by Tyro | December 17, 2007 9:33 AM

Ben Smith also gets halfway there, but also doesn't mention the idea of Lieberman intentionally trying to help Clinton as the plainest reading of this news.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 9:36 AM

"If Lieberman's endorsement were about the totality of a politician's views, including, but not limited to the war, which was merely a "weighted consideration," then Clinton would have been the obvious choice for Lieberman."

But, of course, if Lieberman were trying to help Clinton, then he'd be endorsing McCain rather than Clinton. He's radioactive enough among the Democratic primary electorate that directly endorsing her would hurt her.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 9:39 AM

There's nothing that makes one feel like a crank as much as seeing something clearly that the rest of the world has decided doesn't exist.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 9:42 AM

Petey:

Doesn't it help Edwards more? Ket's consider that making the Independent vote smaller surely cuts into Obama the most in theory (personally I have to wonder what type of independent would vote for McCain AND Obama), but it also cuts into Hillary vis a vis Edwards who is certainly the least likely to have appeal with the McCain/Lieberman voter.

Two other points - surely Lieberman is doing it because he is the same egomaniac we all remember. And personally, I think the effect of this is nil.

And finally, what does it say about Obama that people who like McCain and Lieberman find him the best choice among the Dems?

I think you misss the best possible pro-Edwards spin here - the anti-Obama spin.

But that has been the Edwards campaign's problem this entire cycle - the haver always seen Clinton as their primary competition when they need to defeat Obama as the Hillary alternative first.

Krugman today shows how to do it. The Edwards campaign and his supporters have been rather politically obtuse this year. Surprisingly, including you it seems.

Posted by Armando | December 17, 2007 9:45 AM

Isaiah Thomas is a great GM.

Posted by WillieStyle | December 17, 2007 9:50 AM

"But that has been the Edwards campaign's problem this entire cycle - the haver always seen Clinton as their primary competition when they need to defeat Obama as the Hillary alternative first."

Disagree.

I think both Edwards and Clinton beat Obama in a two way race.

Edwards needs to beat Clinton as the Party candidate. That's where the real race is.

(Mark Penn seemingly disagrees with me, but Mark Penn is dumber than a suitcase full of rocks.)

"And personally, I think the effect of this is nil."

If McCain starts getting up high in the NH polls, he starts pulling lots and lots of votes from Obama. If this endorsement has zero effect on McCain, then you are correct. But if this endorsement helps McCain, then you are incorrect.

"And finally, what does it say about Obama that people who like McCain and Lieberman find him the best choice among the Dems?"

I'll leave that angle to Krugman. For numerous reasons, both strategic and sincere, I have no wish to stick a dagger in Obama.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 9:52 AM

Petey, your opinion on the matter has been noted (repeatedly). My statement had absolutely nothing to do with your statements on the matter; I was address the guy who ignorantly claimed that Liberman's endorsement of McCain had something to do with McCain's other, non-war-related views.

Also, really, get your own blog.

Posted by Tyro | December 17, 2007 9:52 AM

"And finally, what does it say about Obama that people who like McCain and Lieberman find him the best choice among the Dems?"

I think it tells you two things. One, the point Matt was making about journalists thinking that warmongering is centrist (and that a "maverick" like Lieberman or McCain who disagrees publicly with his party must be a moderate.) And, two, that independents are confused. It doesn't tell you anything about Obama--who is very far from McCain or Lieberman on Foreign Policy.

Posted by d | December 17, 2007 9:53 AM

"And, two, that independents are confused."

Just to clarify. Of course independents are generally a little confuse. But this time they will only be more confused than normal if they really can't decide between Obama and McCain. I am not so sure that independents are going to go for McCain this time. They might, but I am not so sure.

Posted by d | December 17, 2007 10:00 AM

Eh. Petey's overthinking things. This is like the idea that supporting Huckabee really helps Giuliani. It didn't.

Two-rail bank shots don't really work in politics.

Posted by Al | December 17, 2007 10:01 AM

"Two-rail bank shots don't really work in politics."

Oh, but they do in multi-candidate primaries. That's the land of trick shots.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 10:04 AM

It's obvious -- a Clinton-McCain ticket would be the way to go. Entire generations of pundits could then retire to centrist heaven.

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 10:05 AM

McCain is finished, Liebermann's support is
irrelevant. McCain is always mentioned as a "top tier" candidate, Ron Paul isn't going to loan him
any money and apparently McCain's few supporters are too stingy to ante up any $$$. Good bye John.
The only good thing you have going for you is you know enough not to call torture, "enhanced interrogation", thank you.

Hillary is not a "Democrat". She like Liebermann
supports Bush's war. Hillary is a cold calculating b-word. She was supported by Fox News
owner R. Murdoch...but we're not supposed to know that...ssshhhh.

There are very few choices in this election despite what we are led to believe by our television set and so called "experts".

Ron Paul represents fiscal sanity, an end to empire building and a restoration of the Constitution and will protect our liberty.
Dennis Kuchinich would do the same, except he
isn't as good at managing money as Ron Paul.
All of the other "major" candidates are egotistical liars on their best days.

While I respect Kuchinich as being the only other candidate besides Ron Paul for being honest
I will vote for Ron Paul.

Google Ron Paul for President...Tell your television to go to hell!

Posted by Bob C | December 17, 2007 10:09 AM

"Petey, your opinion on the matter has been noted (repeatedly). ... Also, really, get your own blog."

I may be a crank on occasion, but at least I'm not a Ron Paul supporter.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 10:17 AM

Oh, but they do in multi-candidate primaries. That's the land of trick shots.

I'm really not sold for a number of reasons, but what does Joe get out of it?

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 17, 2007 10:18 AM

"I'm really not sold for a number of reasons, but what does Joe get out of it?"

Well, for one, he really does owe Clinton an enormous favor.

Clinton really stuck his neck out for Joe in doing that big pre-primary rally in '06. It was already apparent at that point that he was going to be hurting Hillary's '08 bid by doing so.

Keeping your accounts in balance is good politics going forward.

Beyond merely that, it's a two-fer for Joe. He picks up goodwill from both the Clintons and from McCain, who are both possible Presidents.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 10:25 AM

Well, Bill didn't go there because he loved Joe Lieberman, he went there because his wife had aped Joe Lieberman's policies and having Joe get trounced in the primaries in an insurrection against those policies was bad business for Hillary 2008.

I also can't quite wrap my mind around Joe winking at the Clinton campaign, and saying "I'm so toxic I'm going to do you a favor and endorse John McCain." "Oh, thank you Joe, that's brilliant, How does SecDef sound?"

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 17, 2007 10:39 AM

Why on earth do independents care what Lieberman thinks? MY's point up was that Lieberman and McCain both extremists. And not all independents are created equal. I can't imagine a human being deciding between Obama or Lieberman, and I can't imagine that person being tipped one way or the other by Holy Joe.

Clinton endorsed Lieberman for his own purposes, not to help Joe in anyway, and Lieberman's furious at everyone in the party for endorsing the party's eventual nominee. The Clintons endorsed Lieberman because they didn't want the party machinery given over to non-establishmentarians who were not already allied with HRC's campaign.

What Lieberman gets out of this is attention. He gets to go on tv for a few news cycles and bemoan how the party abandoned him, and how we need to be bipartisan, and how McCain is the only one who "understands" the "seriousness" of the war, i.e., agrees with Joe Lieberman on it. Ugh -- too much time on Lie-man.

Posted by David B. | December 17, 2007 10:55 AM

"I also can't quite wrap my mind around Joe winking at the Clinton campaign, and saying "I'm so toxic I'm going to do you a favor and endorse John McCain"

I think the idea flowed the other way. Mark Penn suggested to Lieberman that endorsing McCain would help Clinton.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 10:59 AM

God almighty, that C-27J web page makes me want to disembowel a defense contractor, or at least the copywriter he hired. Check this out:

Born a rugged military airlift platform, the C-27J has a maximum payload of...

Thank God we have Republicans in power who ensured this beautiful little airlift platform would be brought to term! Those liberals surely would have aborted it.

Posted by brooksfoe | December 17, 2007 11:04 AM

I'm pretty sure Raytheon will be performing the abortion on the c-27.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 17, 2007 11:23 AM

I like this bank-shot theory of endorsement. I'm not sure I believe it but it is certainly an interesting take.

Posted by Steve Balboni | December 17, 2007 11:24 AM

Strike my previous comment, I'm saying there's no way that this bank shot theory is true.

It seems plausible but I don't think it's probable. Lieberman is a selfish, self-involved, egomaniac. No way he does something like this to help Hillary. He knows that she can't give him the VP slot or even a cabinet position - McCain can.

Posted by Steve Balboni | December 17, 2007 11:30 AM

But really, Lieberman got what, 8% last time around? The only people who like him more now than then are Republicans. I don't think this brings many independants at all over from Obama to McCain.

Posted by mad6798j | December 17, 2007 1:32 PM

PLease people - take a look at Dennis Kucinich's record - he has been RIGHT ON EVERYTHING. Is it any wonder that they "powers" squelch him? Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only tow worthy on ANY consideration - except maybe for Chris Dodd (he and Gary Hart knew what was going to happen with Iran Contra long before it was all exposed for example) - who has been criminally neglected considering his pretty amazing bold and informed positions in the Senate.

Kucinich (kucinich.us), Paul, and Chris Dodd - the ones who really know.

KUCINICH for President...for me anyway - www.kucinich.us

Posted by stephen | December 17, 2007 7:26 PM

Lieberman likes McCain because they're both excited about sacrificing American fortune and lives for the benefit of Israel.

Joe sold out to Karl Rove to win re-election (financed by GOP bigwigs) and Karl now wants the payback: endorse McCain (the Bush clone).

My opinion: Joe's endorsement kills McCain.
Support for McCain and his favorite war have plummeted among Republicans (approaching zero among Democrats and Independents).
Joe can't switch more than a few dozen GOP hawks to McCain's side, away from Rudy. He'll just alienate party loyalists that *do not like* candidates who get endorsed by Democrats.

The *intent* is to cast McCain as a bi-partisan compromise, but it's obvious to everyone that he's just a downed soldier being held captive in enemy (Democrat) territory. If they tortured him, he might win some sympathy votes.

Posted by Westmiller | December 19, 2007 3:28 PM