Yes, because Senator Clinton's vote on the War in Iraq really had such an affect on those who voted in the 2008 Democratic primaries that she lost the nomination. I'm not denying that it contributed to her defeat, but it was nothing compared to numerous other factors, such as Obama's organization, etc which helped Senator Clinton lose the nomination Senator Obama.
^^^^
Exactly. I would wager to say her stand gained her some votes as well from more hawkish Dems, of which there are more than BRTD would like to admit.
I think the Joe Lieberman's campaign in 2004 showed how many there were. And that was 2004, not 2008. There is simply no way it gained her more votes than it lost.Joe Lieberman was running as a pro- war candidate not just a hawkish candidate. You had the top two vote getters with 68% of the vote in the Iowa caucus who voted for the war in Iraq and had not apologized for it, and another 11% went to a guy who basically organized the pro- authorization Dems in the House.
And that's relevant because...?
[/quote]
The political science literature tells us that partisans sometimes make their decisions based on what famous people whom they like say. For example, prior to the bombing halt in 1967 most Americans were against a bombing halt. But after it was announced, most Americans shifted to favor it. The same goes with partisans of one party. Had a Democratic President launched the war, and all the Democratic politicians were saying the war was good, and all the Republican politicians were saying it was bad, most Democrats probably would have ended up favoring the war, and most Republicans opposing it.
In other words, a lot of the polling vis-a-vis the war reflected partisanship rather than innate inclinations. No party has a monopoly on isolationist, anti- war tendencies, or internationalist tendencies.
Poll
