War and the Democrats

-By Jeff Danziger via Slate.com

Does Joe Lieberman losing his primary yesterday mean that a Democrat that voted for the war cannot win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008? I think it does because this comment:

``I don't expect war fever to dissipate in the Democratic Party," said Roger Stone, a Republican political consultant. ``This is an ominous sign . . . for Democrats who have supported the war."

from this article is probably right. While I wouldn't call it war fever, it seems unlikely Democrats will walk away from this issue any time soon since the situation in Iraq looks like it is getting worse.

I had long ago decided that I could not vote for a candidate in 2008 that voted for the war, but Lieberman's loss yesterday suggests there are many more like me out there. I can forgive politicians voting to save their jobs on many issues. I get that it is hard to make everyone happy when you are an elected official. But sending our soldiers to die in a war because you were afraid you might you lose your job or not get a future job like President of the United States, is unforgivable in my book no matter how hard you pick at Secretary Rumsfeld now in a committee hearing.

Twenty-three senators and one hundred thirty-three representatives had the courage to vote "no". Those totals included people from both parties and if a candidate for President of the United States wasn't one of them, there are a lot of people that will not vote for them in 2008.

UPDATE: Josh Micah Marshall of Talkingpointsmemo.com asks since Lieberman only lost by four points, might he have won if he hadn't told everyone weeks ago that he would run as an Independent if he lost? Maybe signalling that he was ready to leave the Democrats made more Democrats leave him. Josh also has some wise words for politicians that forget where they came from in this article.