There seems to be a unified Dem message--

[ginnyinWI]

at least among Kerry, Biden and Wes Clark. I saw the last two on TV today and they are basically saying what Kerry said the other day:

Kerry (speech in Seattle) has said that the civilian leadership of the war in Iraq is not measuring up to the sacrifice that our troops are making.

Wes Clark (MTP) said that they should have a regional dialog with Iraq's neighbors, and do the necessary diplomatic work to get the job done (which Kerry has also said). He said military leaders are also complicit if they do not speak out about what mistakes are being made.

Biden (This Week) said he and other Dems have been giving advice since this thing started--to no avail. He said Rumsfeld should be fired (which Kerry said two years ago also). He's angry that the civilian leadership is just floundering around, pretending to get things done, and failing miserably. He said the Right is complaining that the Dems don't "have a plan" for bailing out the catastrophic mess that the Republicans have gotten us into--and he was saying, "yes we do but you don't listen."

Sounds like a fairly unified message to me. But there does seem to be a split between Dems who are hanging on, hoping to improve the situation, and those who want to get out now. I hope the passage of time will resolve this split one way or the other. It really looks like we are doing more harm than good over there now, but then I think--what do I really know?

[wisteria]

1. I was thinking about the "unfilled message" issue too!

I agree, Kerry,Clark and Biden are all saying very similar things. Why can't this be the message? Kerry has been calling for Bush to get it right and get out. He keeps saying time is running out.This appears to be Clark's and Biden's opinion also. I would like to know when do we know when the time has past to get it right. Is it now, is it after the ratification of the Constitution or will it take a year or more. like you,I am not sure that I have all the facts about this war. I'm concerned about an immediate pull out for a number of reasons, but then I think, while we stick around trying to make things work, more soldiers and Iraqis will die. Any decision on this war has got to be agonizing and gut wrenching for anyone with a conscience.

[karynnj]

2. Even more gut wrenching is the fact

that any decision they recommend will not be implemented, unless they agree with Bush. It always seems to be a tricky time - in January when Kerry was on MTP, the pundits were extolling the Iraqi elections as a major success. Now, Bush is pushing the constitution, that eliminates most woman's rights and creates law based on Islamic law, as a victory for democracy.

Just as the second UN vote was deemed unnecessary before invading, because we would lose - the constitution was not ratified, because it would lose. It really does not look like it will be successful. The problem for the Democrats now is when they speak the truth and say things aren't working, they will first be criticized as not wanting the US to succeed and later blamed - because their criticism caused it to fail.

I do agree with you that there is a huge amount of common ground between many Democrats, I would even include Kennedy and Feingold to your list. In addition to the agreements you mentioned, I think they are all against permanent bases (not sure about Biden). I think the problem in having a party wide consensus is that as of this time people like both Clintons, and Bayh have been more supportive of Bush. If they stay so pro-war, there can't be a party consensus.

[ginnyinWI]

3. On the one hand,

being in the Senate (or the House) means you have to be very sure of what you say, and very responsible for what happens if someone should follow your advice--like they'd have to answer for escalated violence in Iraq if we did pull out at the Dem's insistence (Ha--like that would happen with this administration. and as if the administration ever answers for their actions!)

On the other hand, is this situation so different from the war about which John Kerry said,"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?", and when asked how they could get the troops out of Vietnam, he replied, "In ships.". Simple as that.

I guess they want to be sure that withdrawing U.S. troops wouldn't make the situation worse and cause more deaths. But everyone was also afraid of that with a withdrawal from South Vietnam, too, but once the public had forced the issue, it was done, and wasn't as bad as people were led to believe it would be.(was it?) Dubya stands up and talks now just like LBJ, trying to defend continuing the war a little longer.

I agree--there has to be a time when they will say, "enough is enough--either do it right (haha again) or get out now and stop the needless death and destruction."

[BlueIris]

4. I knew Kerry and Clark had a unified message, but I hadn't heard

about Biden deciding to use it as well. Interesting. I've been willing to listen to Biden more, lately. Only a little more, mind you, but it's there.

[karynnj]

5. Biden talked of inadequate training in 2004 and at the Rice hearings

Biden has been saying not enough troops were trained. On Yesterday's Stephanopolis show, Biden was visibly annoyed that he was asked to answer Hart (there was contempt in his voice when he said so.) His answer was that he has had a plan and referred to a Brookings speech. He then mentioned random things he was speaking out on. I don't think he mentioned permanent bases.

He did not mention any other Democrat - A great answer would have been one that blew away the question - the premise that the Democrats don't have a plan is bogus - Bush never articulated a plan, Kerry did. Since the election, no one Democrat speaks for the party, but many leaders have suggested plans.

What he could have said: Kerry articulated a 4 point plan last year that was designed so that we might be starting to leave now. He (Biden) and Clark were advisers to Kerry during the campaign and though both would have tweaked the plan a bit in different ways, the three men were more in agreement than not. As the situation worsened this year, each of the three has articulated a revised plan to deal with the greater problems. He could then mention, saying he disagreed, that Feingold was in basic agreement but felt the addition of target dates would create more pressure to succeed. Most importantly,he should have stated his plan's basic parts - listing the elements as simply as Kerry did - counting off 4 points.

An answer like this would:
-Actually GIVE THE OUTLINES OF A PLAN - whining in a snippy way that Hart didn't read his Brookings speech, doesn't tell listeners the plan.
-Counter right up front that the Democrats have no plan and turn it into demanding the press ask for a REPUBLICAN plan.
-Emphasize that a large group of Democrats agree on more than they disagree on. If he's auditioning to be the candidate, crediting others is important. (A simple short comment, like those made by Kerry and Kennedy respectively when Russert tried to suggest they were in disagreement would work.)

Observations:
- He was far less logical and clear than Kerry and being a straight talker was suppose to be his strong suit.
- His egotism precluded complimenting the other Democrats. His disdain of Hart could have been replaced by mentioning that while Hart was one of the first to warn on terrorism in his Jan 2001 report, he was wrong that no one has articulated plans - maybe because they have gotten little press.
-Personality - it came across to me as petulant that he was almost contemptuous of Hart not knowing or acknowledging the greatness of his Brookings speech. How arrogant. He and Hart both ran in 1988 - is there bad blood?

[Mass]

6. The best answer he could have given was to say that Kerry had said all

that during the campaign and they were not listened to.

Unfortunately, Biden has an ego so big that he could not mention Kerry. I remember that this used to drive me crazy between march and the September, when Biden would say the same things as Kerry, but never use his name. I think one of this absence of team playing is one of his less attractive characteristics.

In addition, I really dislike how he tried to bash both Feingold and Hart. Actually, last time he was on one of these shows, he could not even be bother answering on whether Bush should receive Sheehan. He simply skipped the question.

[karynnj]

7. I remember that he answered the military funding question

by flatly stating Kerry made a mistake not voting for it on the second bill. He made no attempt to point out Kerry wanted it funded and wanted oversight, because it was already known there was funding gone but not accounted for. Instead, he felt it was more important to state he was right.

In addition to his ego, and lack of team playing, the fact that it takes so little to turn him into a red-faced temper tantrum is a very bad characteristic. (With big provocation, he's almost scary. It looked like he could explode at the worst Bolton meeting - Kerry was angry too but very much in control of himself, asking if they wanted to find the truth and talking about voting blind, but when it was his turn again, he was a statesman talking about the history of the committee and its tradition of being non-partisan.)He almost makes Dean look good tempered.

I had trouble reading his Brookings speech that someone on DU-P had a link too - maybe because it was late at night. It seemed there was a lot of talk with little meat. In one clip of a Biden speech - carried away by the rhetoric, he actually said we don't have red hearts or blue hearts, we have purple hearts. (after last summer?????) If he was trying to improve on Obama's comment - which he could have used and credited, he didn't.

[ginnyinWI]

8. it is too bad about the egotism

He mentioned Sunday that "other Democrats" had said things, but it would have been nice of him to mention Kerry. Maybe if he had been a little more of a team player, he'd have a major cabinet position now in a Kerry administration.

Is Biden presidential? He's smart and capable, but I wonder how his personality would play out in the media. I know he is a good friend to Kerry--remember when he was onstage with Kerry for a major foreign policy speech last year. He could be heard saying things like, "atta boy, you really nailed it", etc.

[TayTay]

9. I think the 'unified Dem message' thing is a bit of a trap

They did this last year during the election. The idea is to get your opponent to answer for something you did, then call them on whatever it is they say, all the while not admitting, at all, what you yourself would do. The press buys this looniness every single time. It's insane. This game is rigged.

The Dems did not start this war. The people who keep up the moral equivalency argument are playing into the Rethug hands. The Rethugs owned the military and the White House when this war was conceived, planned and executed. The Downing Street Minutes tell us that the Rethugs (with some help from Tony Blair) spiked the punch at this party by lying their way into getting congressional approval for the war. This is no small matter. This is the friggin ballgame. They LIED to the Senate and to the Democrats. They 'fixed' the Senate Intelligence Committee info stream so that the truth could not get out and they LIED to the American people to get what they wanted. The Democrats in general and John Kerry in particular did not LIE to the American people and did not conceive of, execute or conduct this war. They are not responsible for what the Rethugs did. They are responsible for seeing to it that proper mechanisms are put in place so that the LYING can't happen again.

The Democrats do NOT own this war. They are not responsible for the monumental fuck-up that is Iraq. George W. Bush and his slavish enablers in the Rethug Party are responsible for this disaster. The Democrats need to answer the right questions, not don sack cloth and ashes for something they didn't do. This is a permanent loser's argument and there is no way the Dems can win on this one. The Rethugs have off-loaded the blame for something they did onto the Dems. I refuse to play this game.