Joe Lieberman, from his indie perch

In a Salon interview, the super-hawk senator talks about his "liberation" from the Democratic Party, John McCain's campaign nosedive, and why Clinton, Obama and the other Dems are wrong on Iraq.

By Walter Shapiro

Read more: Democratic Party, Politics, Israel, Joseph Lieberman, News, Walter Shapiro, Iraq, Global Warming, 2008 election

Aug. 3, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- It may have been collateral damage, but the fiery end to Joe Lieberman's political career as an orthodox Democrat ranks among the most dramatic casualties of the Iraq war on the home front. A year ago this week, Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee, lost a high-voltage Senate primary race in Connecticut to antiwar challenger Ned Lamont. But then running as an independent in the general election, Lieberman, an unstinting champion of the war, romped home to his fourth Senate term.

The national 2006 Democratic sweep left Lieberman, who now calls himself an Independent Democrat, as the ultimate swing vote in the narrowly divided Senate. By choosing to caucus with the Democrats, Lieberman, in effect, elected Harry Reid as Senate majority leader. But even as Lieberman continues to vote with the Democrats on most domestic legislation, he has been moving steadily away from any identification with the party, saying that he might not endorse the party's 2008 presidential nominee and refusing to categorically rule out someday becoming a Republican.

Wednesday afternoon, Salon interviewed Lieberman in his Senate office. Sitting in an armchair with his suit jacket off, tapping his right foot for emphasis, Lieberman reveled in his status as the most independent man in the Senate. (The interview transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length.)

It is almost a year to the day since you lost the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary to Ned Lamont and filed for reelection as an independent. Are you happier now politically then you were as a Democrat?

We joke about "Liberation Day" [the day he filed as an independent], but there's a lot of seriousness to it. I have felt liberated. It's interesting because I have always felt that I was an independent-minded senator. It was in part what got me into the difficulty I was in among my fellow Democrats about Iraq.

There is no question that I have felt totally liberated and have enjoyed the freedom that came in some sense because the Connecticut Democrats who voted in the primary last year gave me my release by refusing to renominate me.

What happened last year clearly intersected with and said a lot of things about our political system. One was how intensely Democrats feel about Iraq. And -- I say this with a certain amount of humility since I shouldn't be an analyst -- that single-issue voting has risen in both parties.

Why in retrospect do you think that you lost the primary?

I lost because of my position on Iraq. And because my opponent [Ned Lamont] convinced enough people, not just on Iraq, to vote against President Bush, who was not then, nor is he now, very popular among Democrats. So to vote against me was [portrayed as] a way to send a message to President Bush, which was, as I said in the primary, an odd thing to do since I voted against him on most things.

So here I am. And I think it is my mandate to work across party lines to get things done. I never would have guessed that I would have ended up as the 51st Democratic vote. So that was quite a twist. And that led me to be the chairman of the Homeland Security committee.

I am very proud to say that two of the major accomplishments of this first six months are bills that I am very proud of that came out of my committee. The Homeland Security 9/11 bill, and lobbying and ethics reform. And I have initiated a number of proposals that matter and done it on a bipartisan basis.

Things like the legislation you are introducing with [Virginia Republican] John Warner for a cap-and-trade system on greenhouse emissions?

To me it's very exciting and a turning point in the efforts to respond to a real problem. Warner, significantly, voted twice against McCain-Lieberman. [This was an effort to place limits on greenhouse gas emissions that failed in the Senate in 2003 and 2005.] He's changed his position because he sees the science and it bothers him and he wants to be part of the solution.

Clearly, I've continued to be different from most of the Senate Democratic caucus on Iraq -- and to some extent on Iran. But it is surprising to me that I have been alone on some of the key votes on Iraq. I know that my position on Iraq is a minority position among Democrats, but it has surprised me and disappointed me that I have been alone on some of those key votes.

Let me ask you about another vote -- your vote that puzzled me the most. That was [in June] when you were the only Democrat to oppose a no-confidence against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. This was a vote that had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. And you are both a former Connecticut attorney general and someone who remembers the politicization of the Justice Department under John Mitchell during Watergate.

Let me reconstruct that. It was earlier in the year. I think I thought that it was essentially a political vote. And the question on Gonzales was ultimately -- he serves at the pleasure of the president. And that there was nothing but political intent to the resolution. Forgive me, I should go back and look that up.

Rather than getting into that, what do you think of Gonzales now? Do you think he should stay as attorney general?

That's the question I don't answer. Look, I will say that his credibility has really been in doubt. He has handled his appearances here -- and I must apologize by saying --

I know that you're not on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I actually haven't focused on his appearances, so I am relying now on the media as to what actually happened.

You're on safe ground.

So based on what I have seen [in the press] and with an occasional conversation with a colleague, he did not do well and he diminished his credibility. In most administrations, the president would have asked him to leave or he would have left. So I leave it to them [the White House]. But his credibility is in doubt. And as a former attorney general, that's not a good thing. And therefore -- but I'm only a senator. To me, that's something that the attorney general should take up with the president.

You talk about John Warner coming around and accepting the science on global warming. But doesn't it trouble you that the Bush White House has been so resistant to accept that kind of science?

Yes, totally. You find that there are slight moves from the White House on this. But it has been a woeful lack of leadership, of open-mindedness to judge the actual science.

There's an interesting change that is occurring around them [the Bush administration], though it hasn't moved them yet. A lot of businesses are now coming here and asking us to do something about climate change. And part of that is that they're beginning to accept the science and they feel a moral responsibility. And they also have an economic responsibility. Because they think that if they don't do something, their companies are going to wind up paying for it. And there are also states that are taking the lead on this in classic federalist fashion. But the White House seems to not be affected by this.

But I have this optimism. It will not be easy to pass our bill through the Senate and the House. But if we do, I can't believe that the president wouldn't be open to signing it. Because it will leave such a negative legacy here on such a critical global problem that will affect our future. So I have been very critical of them on this.

Next page: "I know mistakes were made in the way the administration advocated for the war"