"The Strategic Class"--Ari Berman(THE NATION). I have questions...

[laststeamtrain]

Here's two paragraphs from the article. My questions follow...

"The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of US troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want US troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate.

The continued high standing of the hawks has been made possible by their enablers in the strategic class--the foreign policy advisers, think-tank specialists and pundits. Their presumed expertise gives the strategic class a unique license to speak for the party on national security issues. This group has always been quietly influential, but since 9/11 it has risen in prominence, egging on and underpinning elected officials, crowding out dissenters within its own ranks and becoming increasingly ideologically monolithic. So far its members remain unchallenged. It's more than a little ironic that the people who got Iraq so wrong continue to tell the Democrats how to get it right."http://tinyurl.com/9ra3y

CAN THERE BE AN ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE(s) for President in '08? Will a firm anti-war stand figure into '06 campaigns for Congress?
It seems the numbers are there from recent polling. Can a figure arise to grab them?
Is there a 'McGovern syndrome'?
What other stands would an anti-war candidate have to take in order to have 'mass appeal'?
I think these are important questions and it's not too early to really spend some time thinking about it.
I would feel awful(for the umpteenth time)voting for a hawkish Democrat.

[phiddle]

1. For '08 (presuming that there are elections)

I think that we MUST nominate a candidate who was not an enabler of the war, and who also does not have the baggage of Congressional votes to defend. This leaves out ALL of the Senators, particularly those who voted for the war resolution. My favorite is Wes Clark, the one who can speak most directly and credibly to the entire range of errors made---concept, planning and exectution of the war---and who can develop a credible plan to get us the hell out of there.

In terms of the '06 elections it must be more local---Paul Hackett did not have a "cut and run" plank, and could not have in that district, but he would've been infinitely preferable to the Republican mannequin.

We can have a very simple platform:
1. Democrats will SOLVE problems, not create them
2. We will use the military wisely (Clark helps here)
3. We will stop using your children's credit card (deficits)
4. We'll run an honest and open government