Al Gore was probably right in picking Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman compliments Gore's strengths -- he's thoughtful, intelligent, and leans towards the progressive end of the spectrum. He also helps alleviate some of Gore's weaknesses -- Lieberman criticized President Clinton early on, though he voted against impeachment while Gore could do nothing but smile and attempt to defend or forgive his President over the Lewinsky affair. Now, I don't think Clinton has anything to feel bad about, but most Americans do, and so does Lieberman. Indeed, Lieberman seemed to represent the feelings of most Americans who, during the impeachment trial, wanted to give the president a verbal dressing down (he's already had an oral dressing down) but not impeach him. So, what's wrong with Lieberman?

He's not a real progressive.

He's one of those new Democrats -- the type who vote, as Lieberman has, in favor of conservative school reform proposals (giving more control to local school districts which is bad because in some localities evolution is considered fiction) and coming close to supporting school choice (which eliminates our social obligation to pay for and provide public education to students, even if we don't have kids or send our own to private school.) Sure, Lieberman has come through for the left wing a number of times, but, and I hate to say it this, but Lieberman is as bad as Tipper Gore.

Lieberman is anti-Hollywood and anti-free speech. After Littleton, Lieberman jumped on the anti-movies band wagon: "...today we are issuing an appeal to industry leaders to adopt a single, reasonable reform that we believe would go a long way toward attaining a safer, saner culture -- a broad-based, multi-media, self-enforced code of conduct. This is not an attack on Hollywood. It is an appeal to Hollywood to work with us as a national community in a joint effort to reduce the corrosive messages the media too often send our kids."

That basically means voluntary censorship. It means that studios won't produce or distribute movies with questionable content. That isn't the job of Hollywood. The job of Hollywood is, dare I say it, art and art has obligations to an artist's vision, not to society. I hate to be blunt, but it is impossible to protect the children without restricting an adult's freedom of expression.

Lieberman also supports forcing TV stations to adhere to public interest standards in broadcasting. But what is the public interest? I'll tell you my interest -- I'd like to see less commercials and more realistic content on TV. But what does Lieberman mean? More TV news? Why, when TV news already stinks? More children's programming? In place of what? Maybe television should be a place for producers, directors, writers and actors to express themselves without regard to vague notions of the public interest.

Now, this isn't voluntary censorship. This is blatant government interference, Urging the Federal Communications Commission to investigate television broadcasters, Lieberman wrote, "Is the public interest being served by the glut of crud currently on the air?"

Who cares? Isn't free expression the more important ideal? Who decides what's in the public's interest, anyway? I wonder what Lieberman thinks of controversial art and the NEA. It can't be good.

Like Tipper Gore in the 1980s, Lieberman held hearings that forced the video game industry to put ratings and warnings on video games. What's wrong with that? Same thing that's wrong with warning labels in films and movies. Studios, recording houses and game producers can make more money selling product that is available to the entire population, rather than one age group. So they make fewer products with adult content. That means that artists and game designers have their visions effectively censored by marketing departments.

Further, Lieberman wants the National Institute of Health to look into the psychological effects of violent content in games and media. Now, if the NIH starts shouting about health hazards, what chance will the first amendment have?

Not even the Web is safe. Lieberman co-sponsored the Media Violence Labeling Act introduced in May. It would move the video game and movie industries toward a single national rating system to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission. He said in June that websites would not be covered, but that his legislation "sets the stage" for such an effort in the future.

Lieberman thinks he knows what's best, morally, and just as he was arrogant enough to judge President Clinton's private life, he is arrogant enough to tell us and our children what images we should be exposed to. I have a hard time trusting people like that.

So far in the campaign, Michael Maiello hasn't heard a single candidate claim to be the champion of free expression, hedonism, and a shorter workday. What's up with that?