Liberals did say that they'd feel better about America if a liberal won the presidency. To be fair, they didn't say they needed our government to follow different foreign policies than Bush carried out to feel better about America.
Heck, if President Obama ever announces that he had to waterboard a terrorist to stop an attack on San Francisco, his liberal base will probably elevate the right to choose torture above even the right to choose an abortion as a political litmus test.
Like I've said, President Obama would get (another) Nobel Peace Prize if he nuked Iran--and probably at least a plurality of support from liberal Democrats, it seems.
Before the 2004 election, I remember reading an article by a liberal author who argued that if conservatives wanted to win the Iraq War, they should hope for a Bush defeat. Why? Because Democrats would support victory once a Democrat was in charge while Republicans would continue to support a war even with a Democrat in office.
I thought there was some truth to that observation although it struck me as essentially holding our troops and national interest hostage to partisan political gain. But I don't doubt that in general the observation is true.
But maybe Democrats should consider voting for a Republican candidate for president this fall--unless they want every crime they imagined Bush conspired to commit entrenched in a second term liberal administration defended by liberal assistant attorneys general.
