Wash Post's Cohen thinks repugs have a shot. I'll have what he's smokin'...

[win_in_06]

"This explains why Clinton recently reversed herself and voted to end funding for the war. The one Democratic presidential candidate from the Senate who did not was Joseph Biden. He said he opposed the war but saw no choice but to fund the troops.

Precisely right, Joe. But more than right, prescient as well. As if to suggest what an issue this will become, Rudolph Giuliani called Clinton and Obama's vote a "significant flip-flop." Since then the Republicans have mostly trained their fire on each other. You can bet, though, that if either candidate gets the nomination, this vote will be hung around Clinton or Obama's neck, and the hoariest of cliches will be trotted out: weak on defense. It will have added resonance for Clinton because she is a woman."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062501465_pf.html

[depakid]

1. Cohen & the Post are a perfect match

Both are utter embarrassments to journalism.

[Recursion]

2. They do have a shot

Congress's approval ratings are lower than *'s

The Speaker's agenda was passed and then completely ignored by the Senate (have any of them been signed yet?)

A Republican candidate who can repudiate Bush and Cheney and create a sufficiently credible political narrative could probably win in 2008.

[win_in_06]

3. Strategists should look hard know at how to pre-empt this approach now

and not wait until Sep 08 when it is too late.

[Recursion]

4. Step 1: don't run against Bush and Cheney

The other guy will have already distanced himself from them.

Look back to the 2000 election. As hard as this is to remember, it was Gore that was distancing himself from Clinton, much more than Bush. Bush essentially claimed he would carry forward all of Clinton's policies with a few exceptions:

1. "stimulative" tax cuts
2. fewer foreign entanglements, particularly of the "nation-building" variety
3. giving government money to faith-based charities

In one of the debates, W basically said Clinton had pretty much done foreign policy 100% right, and that we really just needed a "tweak" to the tax code.

Gore was the one talking about massive changes to the structure of government finance and the need for greater foreign military interventions.

The GOP is good at this. By the time the candidates are shaken out, whoever wins the Republic nomination will have found a subject to pick a fight with Bush on, and win that fight (and this may be exactly why * is taking an immigration stand that is so unpopular with his base). We will probably not be able to run against * in the 2008 election, as much as we want to. And if we're still in Iraq in 2008 then we'll probably lose the Congress, since the antiwar bloc will for the most part decide neither party will actually help them and stay home.

[win_in_06]

5. You are absolutely right, I think dem candidates oft need to be reminded:

Bush ain't running.

[LiberalFighter]

6. There is a way to use Bush against any Republican contender

[enough already]

7. It will be Thompson and the issue will be illegal immigration

We need to completely trash him now.