Lieberate (tr. v.)

With a tip of the hat to Mark Tebben.

lieberate
tr.v. leib·er·at·ed, leib·er·at·ing, leib·er·ates

1. To create a false third way; to pass as different an amalgamation of empty ideas
2. To pretend a compromise position is original

Although I think the Senate race to watch this year is Democrat Harold Ford’s challenge for the Republican seat Bill Frist is leaving open (perhaps to pursue the presidency), last night’s debate between incumbant Joe Lieberman and his fellow Democrat and challenger Ned Lamont was certainly a revealing one. (The full debate is online at NBC30.com if you missed it.) (Disclosure: I worked as a volunteer for the Gore/Lieberman 2000 campaign in York County, PA.)

I’ll boil down my response in two categories.

Style
Lieberman had a comfortable poise in front of the camera that should be expected of a veteran senator and former vice presidential candidate, yet he lacked fire, mumbling worse than usual as if he was nearly disinterested in the whole thing. Lamont (disclosure: I’m a big fan of Sanford and Son, where the “Son” is named Lamont) was rough around the edges, as is to be expected for a newcomer to national politics, but he grew more comfortable throughout the course of the debate. Unlike Lieberman, Lamont actually looked directly at his opponent when he leveled attacks at him. Lamont clearly has “fire in his belly.”

Content
Lieberman’s message in last night’s debate was twofold: 1) I’m damn good at pork-barreling, and 2) better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know. It was a huge disappointment. He spent all his energy labelling himself as a “bread and butter” Democrat (read: a guy who pork barrels a lot for Connecticut) and asserting that no one knows where Lamont stands on most issues. Lamont retaliated in kind, but he also discused his positions on substantive issues like universal health care, the failure of the Iraq occupation, and the loss of good jobs.

In short, Lieberman is not a new breed of Democrat. He’s just a weak one.