Wellstone to Lamonte with a few sidetracks.

by Sara

Let me begin with the sidetrack (remember in Minnesota we drink at the Sidetrack Cafe).  If you have a copy of Bill Clinton's book -- My Life, get it down and read the first pages of Chapter 17, beginning on page 174.  Bill Clinton served as a campaign worker for Joe Duffey who ran for the Senate as a Peace Candidate in 1970 against Tom Dodd, Father of current Senator Dodd in the Primary, and against Senator Weicker in the General.  Yep, circumstances are different, but Clinton's analysis is something critical to read.  It ended up in the General as a three way race with Dodd (who had been indicted) running as an independent, but taking 25% of the vote from mostly blue collar ethnic precincts, thus electing the Republican.  (In fact if you read these few pages you will also learn where Clinton met much of his White House Staff.  Duffey served Clinton heading Voice of America.)  We need to remember that Lieberman became a Senator by ultimately defeating Weicker.   But that is a sidetrack from what I planned to write about, I just think it critical that Clinton's take on that campaign be read, and absorbed.   Today it is the conventional wisdom. 

By drawing attention to the connection between the Wellstone 1990 Campaign and what I see as the Lamont Campaign as it now stands, I also want to deal with conventional wisdom -- but about how it can be bloomin' wrong.  I don't think the Duffey-Clinton experience is the necessarily appropriate model -- but it just might inform.  On the other hand conventional wisdom can be damn wrong.  At Thanksgiving in 1989 I feasted at a legislator-friend's house who had just endorsed a fellow plain vanilla suit for the 1990 Senate Race, and her husband, pouring the glass of wine before dessert, pushed back and said, OK -- let's predict the 1990 Senate Race.  Around the table we went -- and come my turn I said, Paul Wellstone will win by a few points, and I'll tell you why, all things being normal, he can do it. 

Well, Jaws flapped, and eyes narrowed, and within weeks word went out I was nuts.  But I laid out my case.  (At this time Mondale was still thinking over the race, and the rest of the Vanilla Suits were all either serving or former Legislators.)  My point -- Wellstone was the only one looking at the race who could draw sharp distinctions between himself and the sitting Senator, Rudy Boschwitz, (R) two terms.  He did the picket lines with the Packing House Workers when they de-unionized the Hormel Factory in Austin.  He wrapped up and did the lines in December.  He also chained himself to the bank doors and got arrested when the Reagan Administration refused to open the farm loan window to Family Farmers who were going belly up in the 1980's. There is no way Labor and Farmers do not know about these actions long before he started running for the Senate.  Boschwitz was sitting on millions to preclude any Democratic challenger -- Paul is the only one with a record of being for the "little guy" that is authentic, and that can bring in volunteers that will work and substitute for Rudy's millions.  That's what I mean by drawing a distinction. 

Within a few months most of the Vanilla Suits had dropped out, and Wellstone got the DFL endorsement on 4th ballot at State Convention.  We had a minor primary with Pro-Life, easily won, and from something like 26% Name recognition in June we built to a victory in November.  We spent a million eventually, (DSCC refused us money till the last ten days), In fact most of our money came in during the last three weeks.  But the reason we got the money was Hillsman's ad -- "Looking for Rudy" which CNN could not broadcast often enough.  (It was a 2.5 minute parody of Michael Moore's then hit, "Roger and Me.")  -- We sold the video to raise money for more TV time to broadcast that and other Hillsman ads.  (Hillsman is now working for Lamont -- the connection in part.)

But the 1990 campaign was not just these dynamics, it was also about power.  My friend who had the thanksgiving feast in 1989 got a call from Joe Lieberman at about 6:45 AM the morning after Wellstone defeated Boschwitz, wanting to know all the details of how it was done, and wanting all the paper.  For this win disturbed things greatly, You see the last thing Boschwitz did in that campaign was to send a letter to the Minnesota Jewish Community claiming that Paul Wellstone was a bad Jew because he was married to his High School Sweetheart, Sheila, (nearly 30 years of marriage, three kids), because she was a Kentucky Baptist.  Now Paul's Jewish roots were pretty deep -- Maternal side, Lower East Side Garment Workers -- union organizers, and on his father's side -- sole survivor of the Stalinist wipe out of the Jewish Community in Harbin on the China border -- but for some reason that did not count -- Lieberman could not comprehend why that late campaign charge had not produced victory for Boschwitz -- even though Minnesotians consider a mixed marriage something long negotiated between a Danish Lutheran and a Norwegian Lutheran family.  What irritated Lieberman was that Paul was essentially a secularist -- formally a member of a Reform Synagogue, but a free thinker -- and he raised his kids to make their own choices. 

The whole incident revealed so much that is hard to write or talk about wiithout misunderstanding.  But with Boschwitz's exit from the Senate when he was defeated by Wellstone, Lieberman inherited the title "Rabbi of the Senate" -- with all that involves.  Wellstone flaunted his connections with "Peace Now" and his subscription to Tikkem -- something very much at odds with Lieberman's stance. 

But we need to dig even deeper.  We need to inquire as to the relationship between the DLC and the Neo-con's of which Lieberman is a more or less charter closet member.  Are they one in the same in many respects?  Is the reaction against the challenge to Lieberman (and its potential trouble)  about a lot more than just who occupies a CT Senate Seat?  I doubt if we can comprehend what is about to happen and what it is about if we do not comprehend the power relationships here. 

In the US, about 85% of the Jewish Population vote Democratic, and they associate because of the (sometimes) social message about equity, and not because of any community direction.  About 60 plus% generally associate with essentially secular orientations -- pro-labor, pro-social justice and even pro-economic justice positions.  As Paul used to say -- the folk who fought their way out of the Lower East Side Sweat Shops.  He thought organizing strikes outside Hormel's Austin Pork Processing Plant was doing honor to his grandmother who had done the same outside garment shops in NYC.  (he was ecumenical).

Lamont does not have this sort of base -- he has not been out organizing the afflicted for the past 20 years or so based on passed down religious but secularized values.  But he is running against someone who could have been partially attempting that for the past 18 years, and who has displayed very little skill at it.  And Lieberman is someone who needed to know at the break of dawn why has good buddy Boschwitz had been defeated in 1990.  (Understand this totally crosses party lines because Lieberman is Norm Coleman mentor in the Senate -- and Norm Colemans Boschwitz's prodigy.  (The DFL plan for 2008 is to substitute Al Franken for Coleman do-able).

I believe that the Clinton memory of the difficulties of replacing a Democrat with a progressive is necessary warning -- but I think that how Wellstone did it even with the nuanced and blatent religious stuff thrown at him is equally important to comprehend.  Just imagine how complicated this will be when Hispanic Catholics and Pentacostals are part of the conscious electorial mix -- maybe not precisely this year, but very soon. 

Let me end by saying I hope Lamont wins in August, and again in November, and that all around they have read Clinton's conventional wisdom analysis -- and that at least some have learned to reach around it.  I actually trust Bill Hillman to have done this and figured out how to apply humor and irony to the problem. 

Comments

[ecoast]

Sara,
Thanks for a great primer. Now it seems clear what really drives
Holy Joe. It's all religion for him out and out, not Democratic Party values. This explains everything.

There was a story (I think in Wapo) that during 04 campaign Kerry people sent Leiberman to Florida to campaign among Jewish retirees. Leiberman told his audience that Bush was a great friend of Israel and all that. He was traveling on Kerry's dime at the time. He is not a man of principles.

Hope Lamont digs some of this stuff up and use it in the primary campaign, but he has to be careful though.

[Sara]

My post was about nothing Lamont should dig up -- it is about history and american electorial history. From what Clinton observed and comprehended, and then from the Wellstone campaign -- there are abstractions and knowledge -- not digging up.

Lamont's problem is as much about what Clinton observed in the early 1970''s as it is about Lieberman's characteristics. In fact it is a merger of the two and how does he deal with these matters.

I hesitated long and hard before posting information about Lieberman's early morning phone call about why Boschwitz lost and Wellstone won -- in fact because I don't want the wrong interpretations put to it. But it is important information. Lieberman is a democrat who not only bashes Democrats in the interests of Bush, but he has other problems.

The digging on Bush is pretty simple, there are several books that reveal the family connections with the Third Reich -- which in my mind should disqualify them from certain supports. Did you notice that at the DC Book fest yesterday that Pat Buchanan made jokes about the Jewish women who had become his supporters due to an odd manipulation of the Palm Beach ballot. A Joke -- good god.

The bright line as far as I am concerned is when the play is against someone like Wellstone, with a grandmother in the garment workers union, and on his dad's side -- wiped out by Stalin, and then someone comes along and says well -- not as bad as Dachau or Auschwitz. Who wants to measure the equal or unequal suffering?

The American Story is not all Jelly beans and roses. It is harsh abd description is fraught with pain.

[DemFromCT]

I have not heard of Lieberman tapping those roots (yet) in CT, or sending under the radar messages, but now we're into the general electorate, not the Democratic Town Committees. As I wrote here, it'll be most revelaing to see how Joe reacts to this challenge. It will tell us more about him and his character than anything up until now.

Very interesting piece, Sara.

[adr]

Crazy Little Howie Scream
Worst candidate and chairman ever

Howie was on his knees on the 700 club
and he was not praying

[JohnLopresti]

I still have Lieberman as one of the cloture maneuverers whose early eagerness to develop a McCain MOU for the 10 then 12 finally 14 mavericks in the Senate really was about agreeing more than halfway with Frist and Cheney's guarantees to put some whacky judges in the courts, Priscilla Owen, then Gonzales AG, Roberts, Alito vote to end cloture but voted against nomination. Got to say, though, he recognized the problem with putting Janice Rogers Brown on the influential DC area court bench, and voted against her nomination.
However, Lieberman is fairly unassailable insofar as he knits his image in metaphysical terms; who in modern secular times is to give him riposte, save someone more mainstream, and, especially, someone more reflective of the experience of being in CT in century XXI. That is a lot closer to the garment district than Joe's political voting record by a long stretch. CT likes elegant elections. I wonder if Joe can lose with some class; I imagine he could. Nice social essay, Sara.

[karen]

What a great read. There's much to think about here and much to keep in mind as the ct primary and general races progresses. I'm particularly interested in the hazards of being unable to distinguish between a challenger and an incumbent in this era of "national security" primacy.

[bboop]

Here's some good reliable gossip! I was at the Rep. John Larson convention in Hartford a week ago and Joe Lieberman was a 'guest' before the pre-convention vote session. From what two delegates told me, Joe received the OK from John Larson to sponsor a cocktail party on the UHtfd campus where the convention was being held. The cocktail party was not widely attended (Friday 'rush hour'and last minute add-on. I didn't receive an invite to this, mine came directly from John Larson weeks before) altho all the CT party faithful were in attendance or made an appearance. There were no 'Rah-rah' speeches; in fact, there were no speeches at all. No reception line; no introductions. People just mingled around, had a few drinks and appetizers. Then they went into individual town voting sessions and straight into the announcements and speeches in the auditorium. This cocktail party was not part of the official invitation to the convention (which is probably why I didn't get one since I'm not a delegate). It came out separately on stationary from Lieberman's office NOT from John Larson's campaign. I've heard several comments since last Friday about how odd this whole scenario played out. I personally noted that Joementum was NOT on the podium with the rest of the Dems who gave supporting speeches for John's re-election; not even in the audience; not even recognized as being there earlier. Weird. Maybe he had another convention? It would appear that Joe has only the coattails of secure CT Dems and some sort of quasi-approval from the CT Democratic Party. I think they know what the people of CT will ultimately do once November rolls around and like Joe...they are just covering all their bases.

[karen]

One other thing, I'd love to read an expanded version of this essay.

[Mimikatz]

Fascinating essay. Almost makes me wish I had the Clinton book.

I wondered after Lamont forced the primary what Joe's response would be, and, equally importantly, what the response might be among various elements in the Jewish community. One thought was that if push really came to shove, Lamont is someone who could probably personally match Joe's supporers dollar for dollar. Where Lamont is going to do better is on the volunteer end, and CT is a pretty small state--about the size of the average county here in CA. He could almost meet every voter.

What will Joe do? Will he run as an indie? (As pointed out yesterday, because the signatures are due the day after the primary, he can't have it both ways--at some point he will have to declare that he's going for the signatures, if in fact that is what he decides.

What I bet he won't do is a an LBJ--just gracefully bow out rather than lose his party's nomination. This is a different era, and my generation aren't giants. And that (as we see with our anointed Leader) is also not what one expects from people who see themselves as instruments of the divine.

For those interested in a further exploration of the topic, as Laura Rozen says, Michael Massing wades where others fear to tread.

[sti1es]

Leviticus 23:3 commands the Jews to "do no manner of work" on the Sabbath

"...Lieberman admitted that he had a plan to get the vote total without violating Jewish rules about the Sabbath.

He was going to leave the volume up on his answering machine down in Westville, so he could get the news from supporters without picking up the receiver."

<>

Amusing...

[CaseyL]

The Massing article is interesting.

AIPAC is as powerful as it is due mostly to the money it gets, which allows it to be a vital contributor (or non-contributor) to candidates. Its approach and effectiveness resembles that of the NRA, another single-issue group, whose effect on politics has been negative due to its with-us-or-against-us absolutism.

One thing I'd like to see is a demographic breakdown of AIPAC's members and biggest contributors - not by religion, but by age. I think age is a significant factor. I know mention of the Holocaust causes eye-rolling and sneers among some progressives, but it's really impossible to overstate how significant an event it was, esp. to people old enough to either remember it personally or whose parents did. That age group (boomers and their parents) is, not so coincidentally, the age group of people most likely to be ardent supporters of Israel, most likely to participate in politics, most likely to contribute money, and most likely to have a fair bit of money to contribute.

No matter what happens in the Mid-East, in the next decade or so AIPAC's influence is bound to wane, as its prime source of contributions dies off and the next generation is less willing, less interested, and less able to take their place. Also, many Jews who support Israel realize that Likud's policies, esp. as syncretized with the American Right's policies, have been disastrous for Israel: letting Sharon off the leash just as US policies were further alienating and radicalizing Arab Muslims. Realizing that means less support for AIPAC as well, since we recognize it as part of the problem, and as a saboteur of solutions (like Oslo).

[GrandmaJ]

Thank you so very much for this commentary. I live in Minnesota was so very proud of Paul Wellstone. My heart still aches for his and the others who were lost...

I just knew Lieberman had some common ground with the neocons and with Bush's plans for the Middle East and would much prefer to exist on the other side of the fence. Not sure why he stays, so far, a dem, other than the numbers you quote as to where most America jews politically are.

These issues will come up in the campaign and still believe Joe will fight it out directly with Lamont using every single tactic he and Rove can think up. Rove needs Lieberman in the Senate to try and keep his 'bipartisianship' scam going.

Have you met Lamont? He is ready to do battle and fight back against the slams that will be coming? I would love to see ads using lieberman's many words of praise for bush. I know you said you don't want to 'dig' anything up, but the truth and facts are stubborn.

[GrandmaJ]

P.S. Sunday at 2:00 p.m. and cannot get onto the FDL website again.

[Crab Nebula]

OK, for fun (?) I'm gonna let my inner Rove out. If I were Lieberman, and desperate and convinced of a likely loss, I'd attempt to run a whispering campaign that Lamont was at least vaguely anti-semitic. Play the NY tabloid media that way.

(by the way, disclosure: I'm Jewish)

Can anyone tell me how conservatives in the tri-state area are reacting to this whole story? Or are they so disorganized as to be ineffectual? (more likely, from my memory; I now live in CA.) NE media conservatives should unite behind Lieberman, "Joe Klein" old Ned whenever possible; and best case scenario root for Lieberman's defeat, then run a moderate R as the "sane" choice. Worst case scenario for them is Lieberman wins.

I'm pleased that Lamont has very, very good message discipline. Were he an average candidate, he'd be easy prey.

I'm not following the campaign closely at all, just the headlines. I do hope Lamont, whom I'm rooting for, has many Jewish friends in CT and on his campaign, which would inoculate him pretty well against this kind of dirty play. Or that they're doing good outreach among CT's Jewish community.

[Crab Nebula]

oops, typed that too fast. Meant to say that for conservatives, the preferred outcomes are 1) an R wins the race, running against a weakened and easily attacked Lamont; and 2) Lieberman wins. Lamont winning is bad; in fact, a continued good Lamont race might make him the next Democratic governor of that state.

[Jon]

Sara, thanks for an interesting historical perspective on the Wellstone Senate race!

The CT Senate race is more complicated than it appears on the surface. As Sara alludes to in her historical perspective, religion plays a factor. My family has deep personal ties to the Jewish community through close, shared friendships. As CaseyL, points out, the Holocaust is a very important event to a lot of Jewish families, especially those with a personal connection to it. And this is cross-generational. But it doesn't just affect the Jewish family with the close personal connection to the horrendous event, it also affects their spehere of influence (friends, relatives, etc.)

For example, all of my Jewish friends are supporting Joe, even though they are very disappointed in his votes and his stands on the issues (especially Iraq) as well as his continual support for the Bush Administration. Why? He's solid on the issue of Israel. On this issue, they trust him implicitly. Also, they believe him to be a man of faith and they respect that, just as their parents and their grandparents taught them to do. They're raising money for him and they're working the phones and their networks for him.

Although I am not Jewish, my very good friend is. And as he keeps telling me, "Jon, we have to support Joe, even though we don't like his votes or his kissing up to Bush." I am torn between my friend's entreaties and my own beliefs. I believe that Joe must go. Neither my family, nor our common friends, will be taking a position in the CT Senate race because they are torn between supporting our Jewish friends and following our own belief that Joe must go. They'll be sitting on the sidelines.

It is important to understand the impact that the Holocaust has made on not only Jewish families but also non-Jewish families that are close friends with Jewish families that have a personal connection to that most terrible of events. I will always vividly remember the horrible story of my good friend's grandparents awful days in that hellish camp. I have been to those camps as a young man and stood there in the cold as the snow drifted down and I could hear the matter-of-fact voices of my friend's grandparents as they told of their experiences during those awful days.

My friend helps Joe and his family helps Joe and their Jewish and non-Jewish friends help Joe because of those hellish days that his grandparents surivived so not very long ago.

[FuzzFlash]

A real pleasure to read such a thoughtful post and comments. In a few short minutes the intricacies of Lamont's prospects are brought into focus for an enquiring mind that needs the nitty-gritty. As stimulating as a great article in the New Yorker without the haughty vibe or the wait for the hard copy. I'm hooked.

[4jkb4ia]

Jon is right. In CT and NY the issue of who is a better Jew is much more powerful than in MN because there are more Jewish voters and more O voters as a bloc. Some of the O voters are taught that it is improper to get involved in politics except when the issue is, like Israel, a specifically Jewish one. One reason is cautious: if you get too involved in their affairs they will resent you, the Jews. But another reason which I just thought up and applies to Joe Lieberman is that it is dangerous to be the court Jew. As you become invested in your role mediating between Jews and Gentiles you may represent ordinary Jews less and less.

[Mark Schmitt]

Let's not forget that there was another anti-war Democrat elected as an insurgent in a primary in Connecticut in 1970, with help from Bill Clinton: Joe Lieberman, elected to the State Senate that year.

Something happened to Lieberman over these 35 years, and it's hard to understand exactly what it was or when it happened. He's like a neo-con in that he seems to be acting with revulsion against some thing -- as real neo-cons reacted with revulsion against their own Marxism -- but what, exactly? He was Jewish then, Jewish now, Orthodox then, Orthodox now, so it can't simply be explained in terms of religion.

All academic questions. Go Ned Lamont!

[Sara]

I agree with Laura Rozen -- the Massing article wades in where most fear to go. In particular the last couple of parts that deal with how the lobby actually works are must reads. (Read every sentence and ask how each tactic will be deployed against Lamont.) I believe Lamont's staff is tight and disciplined, and will have access to such information and will perhaps understand how to work around -- but in the end all this is about power, and we need to get used to thinking about that as we try to make a case for Domestic Progressive Politics. No one gives up power voluntarily.

I am going to start another thread on the matter of Holocaust History as a factor in Voting in the US -- but I need to get my references together first.

If we ever want a meaningful and politically workable movement adverse to military solutions to all problems (note I am not a total pacifist), we have to comprehend the power behind those who depend on militarism. And like it or not, this is one of the most potent sources in current American Politics -- the combine of the neo-con's in Republican circles, and their first cousins in the DLC. I don't think we can financially out-bid them, but as Wellstone's career illustrates, sometimes you can go around and be effective. Paul was one of the strongest supporters going for use of force in Bosnia and Kosovo -- but he began his Senate Career in 1991 with a speech against Iraq one, and he ended it with his speech against Iraq Two -- about ten days before that horrid plane crash.

[Kathleen Grasso Andersen]

On Joe Duffey's campaign for the US Senate, it began in 1968, at the State convention in Hartford. He was Chairman of the Gene McCarthy for President Committe. We had 25% of the delegates, not enough to elect a slate of presidential delegates to the Chicago convention. We had asked John Baily, the State and National Chairman of the DNC, for proportional representation on the slate going to Chicago, 11 out of 44, but he refused. I had done the election law research for our committee which forced the first primary in CT. in some of our towns, hence we had 25% of the delegates and I knew that we only needed 20% of the delegates to challenge Abe Ribicoff to a primary. I talked Joe Duffey into letting us put his name in nomination for US Senate. Bailey, Gov. Dempsey and Ribicoff called a middle of the night meeting and gave us 9 seats and made a deal with us, that if we waited until 1970 for Joe to run, they would support him, rather than Tom Dodd.