New Republic's Peretz: Bill Clinton's appearance “began Lieberman's decline”

Written by Raphael Schweber-Koren

Published

In a post on The New Republic's weblog The Plank, editor-in-chief Martin Peretz blamed Bill Clinton for Sen. Joseph Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary. Peretz wrote: “Lieberman and [Ned] Lamont were running dead even in the polls, more or less. Clinton's appearance began Lieberman's decline. Within two or three days, Lieberman was down by ten points.”

In an August 8 post on The New Republic's weblog The Plank, editor-in-chief Martin Peretz blamed former President Bill Clinton for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary. Lamenting that his own August 7 Wall Street Journal op-ed “did not ... help Joe very much,” Peretz commented that "[w]orse can be said of Bill Clinton's stumping in Connecticut for Joe," which Peretz said had led to a sharp drop in Lieberman's support. “When Clinton came into the state,” Peretz wrote, “Lieberman and [businessman Ned] Lamont were running dead even in the polls, more or less. Clinton's appearance began Lieberman's decline. Within two or three days, Lieberman was down by ten points.” He then asserted that -- contrary to the “nostalgia” in the Democratic Party for Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) -- “many” people “in the party and out” actually think that “the Clintons are a nightmare.”

Peretz further suggested that the “common wisdom” that "[former presidential candidate] Al Gore would have won in 2000 had he embraced Clinton more" was wrong: "[L]ook at what happened to Joe," he wrote.

Peretz's August 8 post on The New Republic's weblog The Plank:

I was for Joe Lieberman. I wrote an article about the race between him and Ned Lamont in Monday's Wall Street Journal. It was not neutral. But, though it got plenty of attention in the blogs and on television, it did not, alas, help Joe very much. Worse can be said of Bill Clinton's stumping in Connecticut for Joe (and Hillary's endorsement, too.) When Clinton came into the state, Lieberman and Lamont were running dead even in the polls, more or less. Clinton's appearance began Lieberman's decline. Within two or three days, Lieberman was down by ten points. (In the last few days of the campaign, Lieberman recovered considerably ... but not enough.) I know there's some nostalgia in the Democratic Party for Clinton and for Hillary, too. But for many, in the party and out, the Clintons are a nightmare. A nightmare, as James Joyce said, from which we are trying to awake. The common wisdom is that Al Gore would have won in 2000 had he embraced Clinton more or had he allowed Clinton to embrace him. Well, look at what happened to Joe.