Robert Kagan calls Sen. Lieberman The Last Honest Man.

The question of the day is, what makes Joe Lieberman different? What makes him now anathema to a Democratic Party and to liberal columnists who once supported both him and the war? Why is there now a chance he will lose the Democratic primary in Connecticut after so many years of faithfully serving that state and his own party?...

How about because he no longer represents tho positions of his constituency?

Mr. Kagan says it's not Sen. Lieberman's relentless support for the the Iraq invasion.

No, Lieberman's sin is of a different order. Lieberman stands condemned today because he didn't recant. He didn't say he was wrong. He didn't turn on his former allies and condemn them. He didn't claim to be the victim of a hoax. He didn't try to pretend that he never supported the war in the first place. He didn't claim to be led into support for the war by a group of writers and intellectuals whom he can now denounce. He didn't go through a public show of agonizing and phony soul-baring and apologizing in the hopes of resuscitating his reputation, as have some noted "public intellectuals."

The fact is, the Iraq invasion is so obviously screwed that anyone who still supports it is to stupid to vote for.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post's editorial page says:

But it seems that Mr. Lieberman is also being pummeled for his ability to work with Republicans and get things done in Washington -- also rare traits -- and that's a criticism that strikes us as shortsighted even from a partisan Democratic point of view.

Mr. Lieberman's problem is he hasn't been working with his Democratic "allies" on the issues currently of critical importance to, at this point, a majority of the nation.

Loyalty is important, but loyalty based on the past to someone whose current position is anathema to yours is silly.