I'm not there yet with a McCain vote. Everybody says he'll keep us safer than any Democrat would, but I seriously doubt the Democratic party wants to lose the WOT - all the rhetoric aside. They
hate GWB - and the war was the best way to attack him. But Ted Kennedy and most high-level Dem ops know exactly what is at stake in this war. Obama's rhetoric in the primaries must appeal to liberals - he has to get their votes to win the nomination. Once he becomes the nominee, he will have to campaign more to the center.
If he becomes president, more experienced Democrats will be a huge influence on him. He's a party candidate, not a loose cannon. As far as Pres Obama on social issues, that won't be good news. But I agree with a lot of other Freepers who state that Republicans in the senate and congress will have a tough time defeating liberal policies inflicted by a Republican president...it will be much easier
legislatively for senate and house Republicans to oppose liberal policies coming from a Democrat.
When we invaded Iraq, many Dems made pretty eloquent statements on the need to invade. Once we were engaged in war, however, Dems hammered Bush because they saw it as a political vulnerability. Do the democrats hate the WOT? Maybe some or many do. But just as we say.."liberals hate George Bush more than they love freedom," I think the Dems really hate losing more than they hate the war. If the Democratic party has realized that they need to prosecute the war and win it in order to keep power, then that's what they'll do. IMHO, for what it's worth.
Ted Kennedy literally opened a back channel to the Kremlin at the height of the cold war to discuss ways to undermine Ronald Reagan. Looking for realism in the present koolaid drinking democratic party is a fool's errand. They are defeatist to the bottom of their boots.
Do you think any of them will support someone like Musharrif at the cost of their sacred NYT holiness on democracy? It isn't going to happen. They will demand socialist left candidates in all countries and only support those, with litmus tests for support that no one effective can pass.
Hillary is marginally more realist and hardnosed than Obama, perhaps. She might fire 20 cruise missiles over the course of her presidency. Obama will bend over backwards to give terrorists whatever they want, and Iran will get nuclear weapons on his watch, untouched.
And you can help that happen. Or not. Your call.