If dems don't draw the line at a candidate who supported a bogus war,

[zoeyfong]

where do they draw the line? I really hate to continue crashing the party here, but this is a serious question. If a candidate's support for the most disastrous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, for an insane, ideologically driven crusade that millions around the world saw through from day one doesn't disqualify that candidate from being the democratic presidential nominee, I would really like to know what does. What if a democratic candidate was anti-choice, or wanted to put prayer back in the schools and a ten-commandments plaque in every courtroom, or lock up all gays in insane asylums, or reverse the last 30 years of civil rights legislation, how many here would still vote for that candidate? Right now we have a presumptive nominee who lent his support to a war that has cost thousands of innocent lives, over 800 American military lives, increased terrorism and other threats to America's national security, and done incalculable damage to America's standing and credibility in the world, to the extent that it will probably take at least a decade to recover from.

Every day i hear top democrats who gave this war their blessing ripping George Bush up and down over its disastrous course, all the while lavishing praise on Kerry, who also supported the war, and i am thinking that i must have slipped into some bizzaro world where political memories have finally shrunken to absolute zero, and our 'leaders' feel free to assert the most blatant reversals of reality they please.

I realize that this issue is water under the bridge at this point, unless the nominating convention should have some miraculous conversion and decide to reclaim the soul of this party at the last moment, but it appears to me that the presumptive nominee has no clothes. In any case, i would really like to know what issue, if any, would cause the ABBers here to withhold their support for a candidate.