It seems the DNC is conducting a fairly restricted survey; the link returns a "file not found" error.  Of course, it is targeted at "democratic leaders," so one clearly wouldn't want any random person on the internet to be able to participate.  (Or maybe I'm just special.)

Anyway, I appreciate the call for strong debates among Democrats.  I think it will help clarify (even improve!) Democratic thinking and increase the country's awareness of the importance of foreign policy issues to Democrats. 

Besides, it strikes me as much more proactive than worrying about Rovian tactics or the faults of FOX News.   There are more ways to "go on the offensive" than attacking the Republicans; this seems like one of the best.

OMG!!!  No Iraq war referrences?  The horror of it.

We seem to be fixated on Iraq as a party far too much.  Remember the rallying cry from the 90's?  It's the economy, stupid.  Well that is still the case.  The american people are more concerned about their day to day battle to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head then the progress of catching Al-Zahrqawi.  They do pay attention to the war in Iraq.  Part of the reason is because they are concerned with terrorism but mainly becuase that is what being played up in the MSM.  They are far more concerned about health care, gas prices, prescriptions, job loss, minimum wage, their personal credit card debt and if they will lose everything to the credit card companies if something catastrophic happens in their family.

So should we still talk about Iraq?  Sure!!  But it should not be even close to the top of our priority list, it sure isn't at the top of the average american's list. 

"Hypothesis: the rationality of a policy position has more bearing on a candidate's electoral attractiveness than the firmness with which that position is held.  Data: two-term president George W. Bush  Conclusion: hypothesis is false.  Damn."

"Firmness of position" is a highly overrated quality at the moment.  Bill Clinton zigged and zagged like a drunken sailor, and yet if he had been able to run for a third term, he could've beaten Jesus Christ.

First of all, don't forget that Bush almost lost to a very weak candidate in '04.

Second, look at how and why the "firmness" strategy came about:

About 40% of the electorate self-identify as conservatives.  Rove knows that particular figure better than any other in American politics.  So the decision was made to get on the good side of conservatives, and use that enormous chunk of the electorate to get 80% of the way to a majority.  And the further decision was made to stay on the good side of conservatives.  That's the point of the "firmness" strategy.  Bush the Younger is telling conservatives he won't sell them out the way they perceive Bush the Elder did.

But "firmness" in and of itself is no rosetta stone to winning elections.  It's just a tactic in Rove's larger strategy to keep conservatives voting as a bloc.

------

"I hope that you will keep a clear distinction between the "anti-war wing" and the anti-this-war wing"

I'm well aware that there are many people who opposed the Iraq war who are not pacifists.  I am one of them.

But politically, the line between anti-war and anti-this-war is very, very thin.  Without a skilled and nimble leader at the helm, which the Democrats won't have until March '08, straddling that line successfully is an almost impossible trick to pull off.

In short, the Party can't be anti-this-war.  It can only be pro-this-war along with Bush-made-this-war-a-mess.

Maybe they read Baer's posting and pulled it down to revise it, before there are stories on the wires about another "Dean gaffe"?

Hey Kenny Boy--As someone who's been getting these "surveys" for years, let me tell you none of them on Terry McAwful's watch said word one about the War on Terror either. So I know it's convenient for you and your silent partners to ascribe some "soft" motives to Howard Dean--as if he personally wrote the survey questions--but this is a longstanding weakness of Democratic pollsters wanting to think about foreign policy as something to "change the subject on", not anything particular to the current chair.

False analogy alert - against the war in Iraq = pacifist troop hating hippy. When are the people who got the war wrong going to begin to address the implications of this/their failure without resorting to these tired old tropes?  As long as we are working in ridiculous generalizations, the pro-war dems are a bunch of pantywaists who bluster on about war, terrorism and defense because they don't want their repulican friends to call them pussies.  Either they  overcompensating for something or trying to hide their support for the Iraq boondoogle behind terrorism.  Starting to sound like a certain president I know.

 It's a fundraising letter not the Democratic Compact with America or the 2008 platform.  Centrists should be glad it doesn't have a questiong about  Iraq since the answer would be 'get the fuck out right now.'  You want to have a debate about terrorism, why don't we start with how the war in Iraq has created a new generation of terrorsists and provided an advance education in killling civilians/Americans

Likewise, the Democrats have to be careful not to appear to be under the control of their anti-war wing.

Of course, it would be just like the Democrats to steal the Repubican's issue just when that issue was becoming unpopular!


Kerry tried to use the war as a central theme of his campaign...and lost.  Since '68, and McGovern, the very best the Dems can hope for on the issue is a push.  We have some great tools at our disposal to bolster our foreign policy positions, like Wes Clark.  I hope we use all tools at our disposal but the issues which will catipult us back to power are all domestic.