I never really knew much about Joe Lieberman until his 2006 re-election campaign. I knew he was nominated as Al Gore's running mate in 2000, and I drew the obvious inference from his surname, but other than that, my only impression of him was what the British would call "a solid back-bencher," someone upon whom you could count to vote the party line.
That changed in 2006. Some out-of-staters looked for a deep-pocketed [redacted] and found him in a descendant of JP Morgan's business partner. Connecticut is a bit different in how people register to vote; you can either register as affiliated with a political party or you can register and be non-affiliated. Most people choose the latter; apparently for the main reason of not receiving campaign robocalls and literature during primary season (only people who register with a party affiliation can vote in that party's primary, which means you are on their solitication list too).
No matter what you may have felt about how we became involved in Iraq in the first place, I would hope that most people would agree that, once we were there, it made much more sense to win rather than lose! Yet we were losing. Lieberman was one of the earliest, loudest, and most forthright voices calling for the "surge" and a strategy for victory. He knew it would cost him votes in the primary, and he didn't care; he still did what he thought was right.
It tells you something about the respect that people in Connnecticut had for Senator Lieberman that he won re-election as an "Independent Democrat" so handily after losing the primary. It seems like the most common reactions were either (a) "we don't want some out-of-staters coming into our state to stir up our politics" (there was a widespread perception that Lamont was solicited and promoted by national party figures who were rabidly anti-war no matter what it might cost us in the long run); or (b) "well, if Joe is for it, it's probably a good idea."
the idea that he would be involved in a sexual scandal or corruption scandal just doesn't fit; he seems a man of genuine personal probity.
In a more conventional way, he also represents the best interests of his constituents. Insurance is a major industry in Connecticut; and it was his insistence that his constituents be protected that led to the PPACA being designed as it was.....while people talked about the "Cornhusker kickback" or the "Louisiana purchase" or the other various special "incentives" that were larded on to the bill to gain its passage, no one ridiculed Lieberman's position that the role of private insurance be preserved; lots and lots of other politicians also have constituencies that wanted to preserve private insurance, yet none of them spoke up with the forcefulness that Lieberman did, and none of them had the respect that Lieberman did to make sure that element was included.
