The Argument For Lieberman

JPod gives it his best shot:

What are the risks? First, there is the disaffection of pro-lifers and other social conservatives, who don't like Lieberman's record. That can be dealt with in part by reminding people that Lieberman was an ally of social conservatives on issues of family and morality and the crudity of popular culture in the 1990s. But that will not be enough. Lieberman will have to pledge not to seek the presidency, and to make the point that he is a man of his word. Indeed, there is a strong case to be made that the Lieberman choice all but requires McCain himself to pledge he will serve only one term, because the goal of his presidency will be to right the ship of state and change the atmosphere in Washington, and then get out of town.

Here's how JPod wants to right the ship of state:

Those goals are first, constructing a post-Bush foreign policy that aims to solidify the gains in Iraq and face down the threats posed by Iran's march forward and (the new entry) Russia's effort to reconstitute some kind of empire.

"Solidify the gains in Iraq" means, I presume, entrenching the occupation with permanent bases. So: one neocon war to continue; two new ones to begin. And with the world in an epochal conflict, you think McCain would leave the stage voluntarily? He lives for that kind of global conflict.

The main problem with Lieberman, by the way, is not that he belongs to another party. Both he and McCain belong to the war party. It's that Lieberman would bring out the Democratic base more powerfully than he would bring out the Republican base.