how would a hawkish but otherwise liberal dem do in a presidential primary?

[freepcrusher]

By that I mean a jewish democrat in the mold of someone like Howard Berman or Stephen Solarz who is huge on the Israel issue and a zionist. I've thought someone like that could be able to get both liberal support but also the Wesley Clark type of democrats.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Wesley Clark was the most anti-war candidate after Kucinich.

However, it depends on how hawkish they are overall. A candidate would be fine if they strongly supported Israel; nothing would really change from what the current policy towards Israel is. However, a Democratic candidate in, say, 2008, who still supported the Iraq war would be slaughtered; Hillary lost because of it even though she had turned against the war.

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

There is a difference between support for Israel in the sense of supporting a regional US ally and the unconditional support for Israel that a lot of older Jewish liberals and a lot of conservative Christian Republicans have.

As older Jewish Democrats are succeeded by younger ones who didn't grow up with the "Never again" mindset, I would imagine someone with the latter attitude - a neoconservative in the Irving Kristol mold - would not be accepted in the Democratic Party as a national candidate.

Basically, the coalitions that tend to be staunchly pro-Israel (older Jewish voters, Evangelical Christians) are becoming less of a factor in the Democratic Party (the latter have left it almost entirely). The coalitions that tend to be skeptical or outright critical of Israel are becoming more of a factor (Arab-Americans largely left the Republican Party after 9/11, particularly the Muslim ones; African-American politicians have always disliked Israel for a number of reasons including its alliance with apartheid South Africa in the '80s). And a lot of voting blocs really don't care that much about Israel policy one way or another (Hispanics, Asian-Americans).

[crypto-fascist superhero]

See: all Democratic presidential primaries since 1972 (1908 if I'm feeling cynical).

[Vermin Supreme]

Depends on the year itself and how the world is functioning.

[Emperor SJoyce]

I don't know, but I do know I'd make it my mission to keep them out of the White House.

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

I don't know, but I do know I'd make it my mission to keep them out of the White House.

DAMMIT GANDALF LOGIN UNDER YOUR REAL NAME

[TNF]

I think he or she would do alright, so long as they emphasized bread and butter issues. Most Democratic voters don't care all that much about foreign policy and interventions, so long as it isn't the Republicans doing the interventions. (See: Libya)

[Emperor SJoyce]

I think he or she would do alright, so long as they emphasized bread and butter issues. Most Democratic voters don't care all that much about foreign policy and interventions, so long as it isn't the Republicans doing the interventions. (See: Libya)

Yep; Democrats only care about all them people overseas dying if it's under Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. If it's Obama or Clinton killing thousands overseas, no big deal. That's really one of the main reason's I'm L-FL, seeing the allies of the guy I supported because he said he'd end Iraq line up one after the other to argue for bombing some African nation, and the guys who'd been warmongers for the least 8 years talk about their opposition to that war.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Ask Joe Lieberman.

[BaldEagle1991]

A hawkish but liberal Democrat has already won a Presidential Primary, he's in the White House as we speak.

[Wolfentoad]

HA! Hillary Clinton was a bigger Chickenhawk then the repub canidates in 2008.