Could you support a Democrat who was for the war in Iraq .....

[kentuck]

from the beginning, but, two or four years from now when the war has turned unfavorable, changes his mind and is against the war? Could you support a Democrat like that for President? One who blows with the wind?

[RafterMan]

1. What I'm most concerned with

is having someone who *understands* the situation as it stands at the time. Having someone who understood things over the whole span would be good, but not necessary.

[serryjw]

2. Can you restate your question?

two or four years from now when the war has turned unfavorable Why do I have to wait 2-4 years....ALL HELL IS BREAKING LOSE just like we all knew would happen. This will never be OK.

[Cheswick2.0]

3. it that person was sincere and admited her/his mistake

[jarab]

4. Yes. But the about-face would

have to convince me that it's genuine.
Face it. We don't get many Feingolds or Lafollettes who have good backbones in times of national tragedy. I'd venture that 99% of politicians nowadays would out of necessity (job security) go along with a "war president", at least initially.
If we exclude all who voted with shrub, we'd have to start all over ... and perhaps that is an exciting idea!
I think I would now be forgiving within your scenario, although I never completely forgave Gore for his suck up to 41 in the first invasion. And, I suppose to "not fully forgive" is not to forgive at all.
...O...

[Rowdyboy]

5. Admitting that you've made a mistake is a very POSITIVE step to me

I respect anyone who can admit an error. Yes, if I really thought they were serious, and had a plan to correct the situation, I could vote for someone who originially supported the war.

In 1964 the vote giving Lyndon Johson authority to wage all-out war in Viet Nam was 98-2 (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). Many liberal Democrats regretted that day and I expect to see the same happen over the next few years.

[robbedvoter]

6. I appreciated Harkin saying he was mislead - he would have voted

differently, had he known all the facts. In spite the fact thst I knew all the facts, at that point in time his position was courageous - he earned points. Made our ticket look even feelbler with their "i would still vote"/ "I wasn't mislead, i'd have started it myself" positions.
I suppose credibility is judged according to the timimg (vs opportunism).
For instance, these days, it would be courageous for any senator to join the challenge of electoral votes.
I'll even lower the bar: fight for social security, damn it? Anything!

[Radical Activist]

8. Right, changing ones mind isn't always blowing in the wind

I would have to evaluate how the person is on other issues and how they came to change their mind on Iraq. For example, I was disappointed that Edwards voted for the war but he was also the second candidate after Kucinich to come out against the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq while most other candidates were still figuring out what to do. That took some guts and he was also one of the few to speak out about nuclear proliferation. So, context matters and I believe there are some who were mislead.

[tjdee]

7. Yes--I don't want a stubborn punk.

Blowing with the wind is not always bad.

I would of course prefer someone to make the right decision right off--but I would very much appreciate someone with a compelling argument about why his opinion has changed.

That shows fluidity of thought and ability to process new information.