Lest there be any confusion, I have hated Joe Lieberman since the day I knew his name and who he was. It was, of course, the day that he took to the Senate floor and gave a sermon condemning President Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky and his ensuing false statements when questioned by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Clinton, to be sure, was certainly not above reproach for his irresponsible actions, but the sight of Lieberman, representing not his constituents in Connecticut or even the rest of the country, but only himself and his ambitions, was truly sickening. With all the contempt and self-righteousness he could muster, Lieberman did his best parody of every big-screen politician, preaching the gospel for political ends while no doubt hiding his own moral failures.

That Lieberman was putting his party at a disadvantage by providing a fig leaf of bipartisanship to the scandalous impeachment proceedings (not to mention ready-made story lines for lazy reporters) wasn’t collateral damage, it was (ironically) his Sista Souljah moment. In fact, in the interim Lieberman has defined himself with other such moments:

His 2000 vice presidential debate performance against Dick Cheney was notable for deference usually reserved for one’s heroes rather than one’s opponents.

His stubborn refusal to fully participate in the Florida recount battles infuriated Democrats across the nation.

His continued support for the Iraq war against all evidence is one thing; his “in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril” statement flip-flop crossed the line.

Now that Lieberman faces a tough primary election fight, he’s back to antagonizing his party and moaning about extremist bloggers, anti-semitic jews (Jewish for the jokes?) and, as Mark Schmitt wrote, “opposing the opposers”:

It seems to me that Lieberman is following the path, quite literally, of the neo-conservatives – not the Rumsfeldian nationalists who incorrectly wear that label now, but the original neo-cons of the 1960s, driven to the right above all by their irritation at the left, often based on domestic politics.

But Joementum just seems to be irritated in general, as if he feels that the Senate seat he warms is his birthright. Hence his little safety valve, gathering signatures to run as an independent should he lose to Ned Lamont in next month’s primary. In his selfish quest to prolong his grip on power, Lieberman is insulting Democrats both in Connecticut and elsewhere. While he has been busy enabling Republicans on legislation from the war to the President’s corrosive judicial nominations to the bankruptcy and energy bills, he is ready to leave his own party. And all the while, proving himself a hypocrite.

In his debate with challenger Lamont, Lieberman dipped 20 years into the past to point out that Lamont often voted with Republicans (as if Connecticut Republicans = Congressional Republicans) when he was on a town council. But in light of Lieberman’s own recent voting record on important legislation and his public statements almost certainly designed to undermine his party while currying favor with the White House, other Republicans, and faux-maverick-loving D.C. press corps, his preparations for an independent “sour grapes” run to keep his place in Washington is most disgusting when viewed through the prism of his attacks on General Wesley Clark during the 2004 election season:

The Washington Post
September 27, 2003 Saturday – Final Edition
SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A08 – LENGTH: 943 words

HEADLINE: Clark Makes First N.H. Stop, Draws Criticism; Lieberman Assails Rival’s Past Support for GOP
BYLINE: Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer

– Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark got kid-gloves treatment from his nine rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination in Thursday’s New York debate, but the honeymoon ended abruptly today.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) accused Clark of making a “journey of political convenience, not conviction” after Clark described in the debate how he had become a Democrat…

The AP write-up from the same time includes this from Clark:

The Associated Press
September 26, 2003, Friday
SECTION: State and Regional; Washington Dateline – LENGTH: 778 words

HEADLINE: New candidate Clark attacked for GOP ties as rivals mull strategy
BYLINE: By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

Clark fired back, saying that when it came time to pick a political party, “I was going to be either a very, very lonely Republican or I was going to be a very happy Democrat.

Since that confrontation, Clark has shown himself to be a happy and effective Democrat, lending expertise and credibility on defense matters and raising money for real Democratic candidates at all levels of government. Lieberman has been acting more and more like a Republican every day.

On the issue of primary elections, I find myself torn. Here in California, we just witnessed an absurdly destructive gubernatorial primary between two men who agreed on probably 95% of the issues. During the first half of this year, they tore each other to shreds, allowing Arnold Schwarzenegger to improve his numbers from the gutter to over 50%. A seat that looked to swing back to the Dems now favors a Republican. But going back to the days of backroom deals to choose party candidates isn’t an attractive option, so the key is to protect the party’s chances in the general election while allowing the contenders to define themselves. Lieberman cares as much about protecting his party, and the wishes of its primary voters, as he does about being a total hypocrite. There is simply no acceptable reason for Lieberman’s actions, especially in a state that went +11% for Kerry over Bush in 2004.

After considerable thought, I’ve decided to make a significant donation to Ned Lamont’s campaign to unseat him. If you have a few extra dollars and are so inclined, I encourage you to do the same. Lamont gets it, and his ads have been both effective and supportive of Democratic values. If you live in CT, or close by, you can always donate a few hours of your time in lieu of cash. It’s time for leadership, not sycophantic support of the same failed policies ad infinitum.