Was Lieberman's defeat a referendum on him or on the war in Iraq? Will others distance themselves from it?

Answer 1

Lieberman, like so many elected EMPLOYEES, turned his back on the will of the people who elected him. The people of Connecticut thought he forgot who he was working for. I don't know if Connecticut represents the nation on this war, but I do think they represent the frustration we have with self serving Politicians.

For those of you who say we should support the war regardless. We did that when I was in the Army.. Remember Vietnam? WE should have never gone to Iraq, now we have to clean up GW BUSH's mess.

The party that led us through WWII knows what to do in war. The party that took us to Vietnam and Iraq makes too many mistakes!

Answer 2

For the type of people who vote in primaries, Lieberman's defeat was a referendum on the war, not on him.
IMHO, politics is the most unforgiving business. All of the leading Dems are tripping over each other to distance themselves from Lieberman. I don't think he will get a hearty welcome and a slap on the back even if he manages to eke out a victory in the general election.
Call me an idealist, but I'd rather see a good person go down in flames in an election rather than compromise their values. So, one of the things I respect about Lieberman is that he's taking a page from Abraham Lincoln's and Harry Truman's playbook: he refuses to let an uphill battle and a supposed foregone conclusion stop him from going to bat, just as Lincoln did against McClellan and Truman did against Dewey.

Answer 3

As long as we have troops in Iraq fighting, every politician in America should be in support of the mission. Its a disgrace to hear democrats say they don's support a casue that so many Americans have died for in Iraq, freedom!

Answer 4

The war. Check the Liberal elite polls like Fox News

Answer 5

Both.