It's become clear to me, a pro-war Democrat stands no chance in 2008

[Walt Starr]

Should the Democrats choose to run a pro-war candidate who only pushes managing the war differently, that candidate will lose and will lose big.

Unfortunately, from where I sit the Democrats will stand no chance in 2006 or 2008 because they are afraid of the big bad Bush and his war.

[havocmom]

1. One more reaon for No Senators in the race!

We will slit our own throats if we run someone from the Senate.

[carnie_sf]

12. Not necessarily

I think Barbara Boxer would have a decent shot. That being said, I still think Gen. Clark would be the best choice.

[liberaliraqvet26]

19. Barbara Boxer???

She would fare very well in the red states.

Im sorry I don't agree. Gen Clark is great though.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. If they are savvy

they are watching the political winds shift. The near victory of Paul Hackett should be a wake-up call to many. The number of vigils being held, the media attention to Cindy Sheehan and the fact that some repukes are now saying Bush should meet with her should give them a clue that the ship is turning while the rats bail out.

[William769]

3. From where I sit, I see a landslide in 2006 for Democrats.

[Walt Starr]

7. Only if the candidates slam Bush and the Republicans

Prior history dictates we'll have wimp candidates afraid of their own shadows who will be constantly on the defensive and never take the offense.

[William769]

8. I agree, I also believe that will happen.

It took the Republicans well over 40 years to come out of the desert. I have faith it won't take the Democrats that long.

I am after all a incurable optimist.

[corkhead]

10. only if we can wake people up to the concept

that you might not be able to trust your tee vee screens to tell you the truth about what is happening in our world

[wishlist]

4. I agree, those Dems talking about sending more troops are misguided

Dems who want to win the hearts and minds of Americans need to be talking about an exit strategy, not going along with Bush on staying the course and sending more troops.

[still_one]

5. russ feingold in 2008

[leesa]

15. Exit at the end of 2006??? What's with that crap? Why not today or the

end of the month? Does he have more money to make?? The war is clearly illegal and without reason. Withdrawal HAS to be immediate. I would not support anyone who is wishy-washy like this and who thinks it's OK to let many thousands more die before we end the madness.

[lvx35]

6. At minimum, they have to run an anti-war VP...and that's pressing it.nt

[1932]

9. Front page of DailyKos says that the NetRoots doesn't care about that

He points out that Feingold is the only candidate who voted against IWR and the only one who can lay claim to being completely against the war and he doesn't sweep the polls.

[Walt Starr]

13. If we run a Senator again, we will lose again unless the Republicans

also run a Senator.

Running any Senator other than Feingold effectively tables the war as an issue for the campaign and WILL guarantee a percentage of the Democratic base will go third party as there will be a third party anti-war candidate in 2008. Our only hope in that scenario is a run by a charismatic right wing third party.

[1932]

16. If we run someone who doesn't stand for something that matters we lose.

And I'm not ruling out people just because of their previous job. I will rule out people who stand for things I don't believe in, like wealth polarization at home and abroad through the machinations of American empire.

[1932]

18. Furthermore, a lesson from J. Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man)

He says there are three stages to US expansion of empire:

(1) the economists try to get the countries on the hook with development loans and they try to get US business into a country (the economic hit men);

(2) if the countries don't cooperate, they send the jackals in to sabotage elections and depose politicians through, uhm, extra-legal means;

(3) if the jackals don't succeed, the US sends in the army.

In the last decade, we've gone to stage three twice (Afghanistan and Iraq), we've unleashed the jackals in many more countries (including Haiti, Venezuela), and we've sent the hit men everywhere.

If a politician has done what she can to fight soft empire (if she has said and done the right thing on trade bills, tax legislation, and accounting rules, and everything else that forces the corporatocracy to behave), I'm going to give that much more weight because that's where these battles over American empire are fought every day and everywhere, and if they've done the right thing on those issues, I trust that they won't be sending the army out to expand empire.

[1932]

11. Also, I'd rather have an anti-empire candidate, regardless of IWR vote

then a candidate who, for example, said they were against the war because of some lame argument like "bad execution" (as if there's a strategic approach to empire that works) and then, say, approved of the $87 billion dollar war funding bill (which was basically the taxpayer financed spoils of wars being distributed to the corporatocracy).

I think the most important thing for 2008 is to think very hard about what a candidate thinks of American empire (which is causing huge disparities in the distribution of wealth all over the world).

If you don't understand why this is important, read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, God's Politics, and Globalization and its Discontents.

[leesa]

14. That's correct. When will the cowards come forward and say it was wrong

and not one more person should die for this lie.

[Wizard777]

17. If they are not promising to serve up Bush's ass on a silver platter.

I'm NOT voting for them! Why in the hell would I vote for a kiss ass wanna be Republican when I can vote for the real thing? My Senator, Paul Sarbanes, is retiring. In the Maryland Primaries for this seat. I'm voting for the Democrat Canidate that,

A) Has the greater grasp on just exactly how corrupt the Bush Adminstration is.
B) Has the better plan for bringing the Bush Administration to Justice or can scream treason the loudest.

If none of the above are available.

C) Wave my flag as I burn my Constitution, vote Republican as a parting Fuck You too!, Then move to China to form the American National Congress. HA!

[BeFree]

20. That's assuming...

That we are still in Iraq then.

Our only chance to win is to put the war behind us; then the next president can get to the business of keeping America safe from peak-oil, and suitcase nukes.

And that's assuming we get our votes recorded as cast.

Looking down the road at 2008 amounts to no more than having foolish expectations about our future, since we relly have no future until we dig ourselves from the hole of war and stolen elections we are in.

[IndianaGreen]

21. A prowar Democratic candidate will lose the election big time

Millions of Americans that call themselves independent and that oppose the war in Iraq will not vote for any political party that wants to continue the war under any PR scheme.

That's just a fact!

[mmonk]

22. As much as some dems want to be a macho

bush like repub, the repubs will go with their own and independents don't really want a dem that wants to the most hawkish for political reasons (even if they do have pro war convictions).