Bill Maher had a solid liberal panel Friday night: Arianna Huffington, Phil Donahue and Gary Shandling. Obviously Shandling is the least political of the three, but I've seen him on there before and he hates Bush and hates this war and is solidly on our side of the issues.When the discussion turned to McCain's refusal to support Jim Webb's new GI Bill, Maher, Huffington and Donahue were (appropriately) disgusted with McCain.
Whatever you think of those three individuals (and everyone of them gets on my nerves for different reasons in spite of my overall political sympathies with them), they are three hyper-informed political observers. So I was more than a little surprised when, at the tail end of the discussion, Shandling, who had been quiet, said:

I would not question John McCain on an issue of a bill like this. I honestly trust him, in a strange way, to do the right thing for G.I.’s, the way he – that what he actually believes in. I think these are complicated issues that we can sit and talk about. And I was confused here as people were talking about it.

[...]

He seems like an intelligent man who has certainly lived that difficult life. I wouldn’t be so—

He seems like.... I trust him in a strange way....

This is what we're up against. Shandling is a smart guy. He was told the facts by three smart people, one of whom is an old friend (Maher) but he chose to believe John McCain instead of his lying eyes. You could dismiss Shandling as a mere entertainer, but this is the appeal of McCain to the Russerts of the world and to a good chunk of the electorate. 

As bad as Mccain is, as patently absurd as his policies are, as much as he repeatedly announces his attention to continue Bush's policies at home and to make them worse abroad, there are a lot of voters, "swing voters", not necessarily stupid, who are going to hear the facts, look at the issues, and vote with the guy who "seems like" their crusty but lovable history teacher or football coach from high school.

Just my daily input of pessimism for the day.

I hope I'm not violating any rules, but I'm reposting a post I did at D-Kos, because I'd sincerely like an answer to this question, and since the readership here is a bit more Establishment than at Kos, I thought maybe someone would respond here.

Anway: Digby posed a rhetorical question the other day, and I've been scouring the tubes for an answer, but haven't yet found one. Since I've seen quite a few LieberDefenders in the comment threads, I thought I'd ask it here:

What good has Lieberman's bipartisanship done the Democratic Party?

Why, exactly, does Lieberman feel entitled to demand the absolute loyalty from the party that he won't give to it?

And why do the Grand Satraps of Beltway Establishment Gasbaggery agree with him?

The Washington Post had an unsigned editorial Sunday, "Mr Lieberman's Strength", that reads almost like a self-parody of Beltway CW:

IN HIS BATTLE to win Democratic renomination to the U.S. Senate, Joseph I. Lieberman seems to be getting blamed in Connecticut for something that in Washington is an asset -- and ought to be understood as such by Democratic voters back home.

[...]

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

[...]

This is a talent and temperament that is helpful to the Democrats in the minority [...] His ability to do so is a strength, not a weakness, for the party as well as the nation.

Ruth Marcus, David Broder, Morton Kondracke, Jonathan Alter, etc. etc. They all agree that Lieberman has earned a Seat for Life through noble and principled bipartisanship, but none of them seem to feel compelled to give a justification by naming some of his achievements.

So, how 'bout it, LieberDems and LieberDefenders? Give me some examples. What has Lieberman done for the Democratic Party, specifically in the last six years, to deserve unchallenged loyalty? What has his rare talent and glorious temperament 'got done' that should make Democrats overlook his support for so many (not all) of this administration's worst descisions? How has he been helpful to Democrats in the minority? For that matter, what boon to the country has resulted from Lieberman's self-appointed mission as Bush's spokesman in the Democratic Senate Caucus?

As Mr Burns said to Homer: You may now WOW me!