Did Gore choose Lieberman in 2000 because of "Clinton fatigue"?

[mot78]

I remember over and over again during the last election of how the media repeatedly tried to tie Gore to Clinton, telling us that Gore couldn't "be his own man". I think that part of their effort to undermine Gore was to promote this perception. I remember there were a number of days during the election where they covered frivulous activites that Clinton was doing. It seems to me the only reason why Lieberman was even chosen was because he criticized Clinton for getting his Monica BJ during Impeachment (although Joe didn't vote to impeach). Even after Gore selected him, he still had the media hounding him about "Clinton fatigue".

[H2O Man]

It was a poor choice.

I must admit I thought Joe L. was okay in 2000. I have come to hold him in almost total contempt since then. I think it is evident that Gore selected him in large part to try to balance the "anti-Clinton" feelings the media reported existed. The problem was that the grass-roots democrats were not tired of Clinton. I think picking Joe L. was the second biggest factor in Gore's loss, just after the supreme court.

[Bunny]

1. Yes.

It was a big part of it.

[mot78]

2. If Gore stood up to the Faux/CNN/MSGOP shills more, SCOTUS wouldn't happen

His choice of Lieberman was a capitulation in the faces of many Porgressives, and caused Nader to gain momentum (in addition to his big ego and breaking his promise not to campaign in swing states).

[bemildred]

3. No, he picked Lieberman so he could lose.

If he'd wanted to win, he would not have went out to
"distance" himself from the most popular Democratic
president since JFK, and he would have run on Clinton's
record. If it looks like a duck and it walks like a
duck, then it's a duck, Bush was supposed to win, Gore
was supposed to lose. The whore press does what it's told
to do. And it was still close.

[H2O Man]

6. Curious....

especially in light of the fact Gore won, and when the dark forces stold the election, it wasn't because of the media. It was in spite of it.

[bemildred]

7. That seems consistent with what I just said, to me anyway.

I.e., I agree with what you said.

[bemildred]

9. Addendum.

I disagree that the media did not "support" the selection.
Both the Dem party and the media lay down and played dead
while the selection was perpetrated, and they still refuse
to discuss it, with a few exceptions, despite it's obvious
unconstitutional nature and the the corrupt way it was
carried out. As I said, the media does what it is told.

[robbedvoter]

4. It was a subtle concession to the RW: Please love me, I'll be good.

The rest is history.

[Southsideirish]

5. I heard Al's daughter, Karenna, recommended Lieberman.

[VOX]

8. Yes. At the time, Clinton was poison, and there was a rift...

between Al and Bill. It was perceived that there was a need to demonstrate to the voting public that Democrats could run a "moral" ticket. (Utter BS, IMO.)

It's a pity, since John Edwards was on the (very) short list for veep candidates in 2000 -- although he probably would have been very unseasoned.

[Alerter_]

10. Lieberman was chosen to get Big Business and Corporate America on board

While Gore was getting "populist" sounding, Lieberman was giving interviews to the business press saying it was all "rhetorical flourishes". Sort of like how Kerry backed off from his "Benedict Arnold CEOs" when he had to go to Wall Street to raise money. Kerry's change of heart worked - he's getting more money from corporations and Wall Street now.

CEOs may be corrupt and greedy, but they generally aren't stupid. Bush is screwing it up for everyone. A uniter, that guy is.

[Jacobin]

11. Palm Beach voters and Florida Electoral votes

[Fleshdancer]

12. I definitely thought so at the time

I don't remember Lieberman being critical of Clinton, but I was living overseas during that fiasco so I missed the Democratic Senate reaction. I thought Lieberman was picked because he was obviously religious...someone that people with 1 brain cell would think: "Hey, this Democrat is opposite of that Clinton guy". While I'm not a huge Lieberman fan, I did think it was a shrewd decision at the time.

We shouldn't forget that the Republicans made much of the 2000 elections about Clinton when it was Gore who was running so for Gore to do what it takes to get the attention off of Clintion isn't far fetched.

The problem with this however is that the Democratic ticket was a bit splintered during the 2000 election. Gore's campaign decided to ignore Nadar and focus more on Bush and I think that's why Lieberman was chosen. For many years I questioned this concept (mainly because I'm one of the liberals who loved Nadar but voted or Gore because, as a Texan, I knew how stupid Bush was) but if the Repubs are willing to steal a state, then would Nadar really have changed that? I think Kathleen Harris and Jeb were committed enough to steal as many votes as necessary regardless of Nadar.