# Posted 10:58 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

LIEBERMAN: DANG FOOL OR "THE LAST HONEST MAN"? Watch Joe Lieberman's interview with George Stephanopoulos. Ask yourself, is there a single instance in which Lieberman criticizes what Bush has done in Iraq?

Not Rumsfeld. Bush. As Lieberman points out, he called years ago for Rumsfeld to resign. But not a negative word about Bush. Lieberman proudly insists that he refuses to politicize national security. For that reason and others, Robert Kagan has labelled him the last honest man.

Kagan may be right. What greater proof of Lieberman's refusal to compromise his own beliefs than his total inability to criticize the president even when doing so is so clearly in Lieberman's personal interest?

Yet while listening to Lieberman, I also sensed that he just doesn't get it. He just doesn't understand what liberal Connecticut voters want to hear. He tells ABC that voters shouldn't judge him just by his position on the war. It is one issue among many, and he is a loyal Democrat on all the others.

True, but not effective. Shouldn't Lieberman be leading off with fiery criticism of Rumsfeld? Connecticut primary voters want a senator who will vent their rage at the war and at the administration. Given that Lieberman really is angry with Rumsfeld, why doesn't he have the good sense to campaign on it?

In an earlier post, I suggested that Lieberman may already be running a campaign for November, when independents and Republicans can defeat Lamont. But, just a couple of months ago, when Lieberman was still way ahead of Lamont, why didn't he direct maximum fire at Rumsfeld & Co.?

If Bill Kristol can lash Donald Rumsfeld, you'd think it would be OK for Joe Lieberman.

Speaking of Lieberman's impending debut as an independent candidate, I also have to say that he did a terrible job of explaining why he won't abide by the results of the Democratic primary.

In fact, he gave no explanation. But there's just no way of getting around the fact that bucking the primary is an act of disloyalty to one's party. Lieberman claimed he's been "scapegoated", yet it seemed like an afterthought. If he's going to buck the party, he needs to say again and again that the party has betrayed him, and not vice versa.

In case you couldn't tell, let me state for the record that my harsh criticism of Lieberman is a result of my affection. Sadly, it seems that all of Joe's biggest fans now find themselves on the Republican side of the partisan divide.

If Lieberman is gone come November, many of us will look back and say that his loss was about the war and about the new energy of the Democratic net-roots. But it will also be because Lieberman did it to himself.

I admire Lieberman's bipartisanship tremendously, but will I be able to forgive him if his moderation causes me to read three of the scariest words in the American political lexicon? Yes, "Sen. Ned Lamont". (7) opinions -- Add your opinion