"Have I defended Lieberman? I don't think so. I've never particularly cared if Lieberman or Lamont represents Connecticut--Lieberman's annoyingly sanctimonious, and less of a neolib than a neocon. Maybe the self-righteousness is why he's never actually convinced many fellow Democrats to change their minds on anything, the way President Clinton changed minds on welfare, for example, or Fritz Hollings changed minds on the budget. Lieberman blew his one chance at greatness when he kowtowed to the race-preference lobby at the 2000 convention. ("Please don't end it." It's that pathetic 'please' that cuts it for me.)" - Mickey Kaus

I should add that Peter Beinart does a pretty good job, in a column from "The New Republic", reprinted in yesterday's Post, in reminding us that Lieberman has changed minds, on such crucial matters as Bosnia and Kosovo (especially impressive, as the lives he is responsible for saving were Islamic lives). However, Beinart does not shy from reminding us that Lieberman's usefullness in challenging tired Democratic Party orthodoxies has subsided considerably since the Bush admistration took office, when he started to embrace too many tired orthodoxies of the wrong party.

The "What have you done for me, lately?" analysis would be enough for me to join Kaus in turning a blind eye were I not afraid that all nuance will get lost, and that a Lieberman defeat will send exactly the wrong message to thoughtful Democratic pols. Is this another good reason to hate the sanctimonious bastard?