Falling in line about the war.

[madfloridian]

I am going to post one paragraph from an article at Yahoo. It sort of tells the whole story. You can read the rest of it by Ari Berman, but this paragraph is the whole story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050811/cm_thenation/20050829berman

"Those insiders who doubt the wisdom of a hawkish course often get the cold shoulder if they stray too far from the strategic line. After criticizing the rush to war, Ivo Daalder of Brookings became the foreign policy point man for Howard Dean's insurgent campaign. Many of Daalder's colleagues at Brookings and elsewhere sharply criticized Dean, and afterward unnamed Democratic insiders bragged to The New Republic that Dean's advisers would never work again. That, of course, didn't happen, but Daalder and others have since tempered their opposition rhetoric. Today Daalder blames the antiwar movement for Dean's defeat and calls for more troops in Iraq."

[Cocoa]

1. that's a good article

I'd recommend the whole thing, it's long and informative, though as you say that paragraph is reasonably representative.

However, I think it's time to stop only talking about dems like Feingold in passing.

How about we start promoting Feingold instead of continuing to give Hillary, Biden, etc. so much attention?

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Hah? If anything, I think the events post-election have vindicated that we

should have run a solidly anti-War candidate.

Regrettably, I supported John Kerry all through the primaries. My mistake. I liked Howard Dean, but believed the noise about how Kerry was somehow more "electable". That is the last time, the LAST time I make those kinds of compromises. No more. Howard Dean should have been the nominee.

And what the fuck is this guy thinking? Support for the war is at -what? 38%? It's like people bloviating about how we need to be more "pro-life". What kind of fucking calculators are they using, when the majority of the American people are solidly pro-choice????

[FrenchieCat]

3. That's why so many of the Democratic Polls are "falling" in line again

with the Admin's message....otherwise, the 2008 candidate line up doesn't make any sense.....for the most part., e.g., H. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Bayh, Biden....even Warner (who did endorse the war).

Who does that leave us? :shrug:

Hey, I know! :bounce:

Some folks with starch and strength!

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. Gore/Clark would work for me.

As long as Dean sits this one out anyway.

Actually, Gore with any of those pictured would work.

[FrenchieCat]

6. I just think a primary with these people running would be the best

thing that ever happened to this country in many, many moons!

Just think....actual choices!

[Warren DeMontague]

7. I'm with you. Gore is my first choice.

Clark, Boxer and Feingold are all excellent. I would add Durbin to the list, too.

[Justitia]

5. Wow! That is an eye-opening article! We have an uphill battle. -eom

[madfloridian]

8. National security democrats....

Here is an important paragraph from the article. I cringe whenever I hear the words "national security democrats", and this reinforces my irritation.

The writer speaks of Beinart, Joe Klein as the liberal hawks, low level.

"Central to the liberal hawks' mission is a challenge to other Democrats that they too must become "national security Democrats," to borrow a phrase coined by Holbrooke. To talk about national security a Democrat must be a national security Democrat, and to be a national security Democrat, a Democrat must enthusiastically support a militarized "war on terror," protracted occupation in Iraq, "muscular" democratization and ever-larger defense budgets. The liberal hawks caricature other Democrats just as Republicans long stereotyped them. The pundits magnify the perception that Democrats are soft on national security, and they influence how consultants view public opinion and develop the message for candidates. In that sense, the bottom of the pyramid is always interacting with the top. It matters little that people like Beinart have no national security experience--as long as the hawks identify themselves as national security Democrats, they're free to play the game."

And a wonderful article by Margaret Kimberly, Freedom Rider.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/134/134_fr_november_2008.html

"From isn’t the only DLCer who knows the sure road to a concession speech. Senator Evan Bayh, who dreams of running for president himself, has penned a tome that tells Democrats nothing of any use:

BAYH: "We, therefore, urge you to oppose calls to withdraw troops from Iraq prematurely, before the new Iraqi government is able to consolidate its authority and defend itself against Sunni insurgents and foreign terrorists.”

"What a joke. Bayh and friends saw too many propaganda photos of Iraqis with ink on their fingers and immediately took a dive. The mess in Iraq is all of America’s making. Every problem from starving kids, to Iraqis under detention, to Halliburton’s no bid contracts, is the direct result of U.S. intervention. The so-called insurgents wouldn’t have anything to fight about if their nation wasn’t occupied by foreign armies"