There is a lot of common ground on the Democratic side, and a good leader should find a way to emphasize that.

Regardless, of what you thought was the right thing to do in 2002, all Democratrs should be able to agree that

1. Either Bush lied about or was incompetent in getting us to war


2. Bush administration has either lied about or incompetently run the occupation of Iraq


3. When Bush tells us something about Iraq, giving him the benefit of the doubt is assuming that his plans will be carried out incompetently

Like most Americans after 9/11 Democrats put their trust in Bush, as he was the President of the United States. As it turns out that trust was not deserved, and Bush has left us in a very problematic situation. Getting out of it will require honesty, a serious look at all of our options, and a return arguing about foreign policy in good faith.

On one level the demand for red-meat is understandable - it's a natural reaction by our partisans who feel a deep sense of powerlessness and alienation.
They are correct in noting that the other side has played this game longer and more roughly than us, and that our failure to respond in kind reinforces our public image of being spineless.
But it's very easy for an office-seeker to protest too much. Except under certain circumstances a candidate needs to project a sunny, positive, optimistic outlook - that requires staying above the fray.What our partisans forget is that generally it's not conservative office-seekers who are called on to engage in this invective, it's their support apparatus in the media - Fox, Limbaugh, etc.
The ability or our candidates to stay out of the mud is still limited as our muddy-boots attack machine - Air America Radio, Democracy Radio, etc. - is embryonic and still finding its groove.

I couldn't quite figure it out, and I thought it was something different, something about the vocal angry Left and the silence of the establishment.  I think you're being too kind here.  It's true that the netroots, like the vast majority of activist types, thrill to shrill rhetoric over actual policy, especially in the context of a campaign, including Hackett's -- though in the context of a campaign it may make sense, since tone is often going to serve as an indicator of policy position, with Hackett's being distinct from, say, Kerry's, the quotation you use notwithstanding.  (I do have to say I don't remember a lot of Gephardt converts.)  Furthermore, in the context of Hackett's campaign, is the idea that he would have done even more extraordinarily well if he had just adopted a moderate tone, failed to raise the salience of the race as well as his name recognition (to say nothing of money and people support from the netroots), and just gone ahead enunciating sensible policy?

But among relatively elite policy people, it is, as usual, the establishment centrist types -- let's just call them the DLC -- who are leading the way in thinking like politicians and elevating rhetoric over policy when they should be doing policy.  It's not the vocal angry Left, as far as I can see.  And among Democratic elected officials and politicians, there's no debate because there's a lot of talk but near unanimity, with the possibly emerging exception of Feingold, presumably motivated in part by his 2008 aspirations.

So yes, there are tensions between what are presumably our twin priorities, winning elections and making good policy.  But we're not going to have a debate about the substance of policy during a campaign, and we're not going to have a good debate about policy with powerful Democratic politicians timidly refusing to engage the debate and a large segment of Democratic policy people thinking like politicians.  I thought you agreed with that.

I'd be curious why the "many Democrats" are that feel that Hackett was harmed by his rhetoric.  Hackett got 48% of the vote in an extremely republican district, which to the rest of us suggests that he was extremely effective.  I think that if he listened to these unnamed people he would have received far fewer votes - it's hard to take people seriously when they're complaining about a candidate who drastically exceeded any reasonable performance expectations.  I think Hackett did well because he came across as genuine in his stances, whatever they might be.

I think that standing up for your beliefs is crucial for the Democratic party, and a lot of DC insiders seem obsessed instead with 1) tactics and 2) bashing their own side.  This is the basic divide, and why I take such strong objection to Matt parroting the shrill bit.  A real opposition party doesn't wring their hands and raise their finger to the wind to figure out what to say.  A real opposition party has principles which they use to determine their policies, and the whole tactical question is entirely secondary.  When someone like Matt adopts the language of the GOP when describing the Democratic base he is playing their game, period.  I think there may be an actual point under his rhetoric, but it's hard to see it when I feel insulted by the language that he uses.  GOPers focus their fire on Democrats, not one another.  Matt might actually benefit in this one particular case by following their example.

We are not calling Marshall Whitman a traitor engaging in sedition, and he is doing that to us.

The DLC and folks like Biden show no compunction in tarring people who differ with them with the broadest brush, and somehow it's "The Netroots" that are just too icky.

Well %$#@ that, and $%^# the DLC.

There is a difference between a conservative Democrat and a disloyal one, and Whitman, and From, and the rest of that scaberous crew never pass up an opportunity to cut other Democrats off at the ankles.

It's the DLC that treats differences of opinions as treason. 

Bush is here to stay until 2008.

I want to get Iraq right and I think we should announce like Sen Finegold a timetable.  However I dont feel confident George Bush wants toget Iraq Right.

The War was bungled up by no less than Sec Rumsfeld and he is still there.  Bush should fire Rumsfeld, get a broad advise from knowledgeable experts with no corporate agenda on how to  fix the problem.

Furthermore, Bush should insist the constitution should be a secular one that dont restrict women's rights.

If Hackett was running for Pres., I would not support him, given his "stay the course" policy. As a candidate for Congress in Ohio, I threw him some bucks.

There's a big difference between running at the national level and in a district in Ohio.

And, regardless, the idea that "It's The Shrillness, Stupid" is a bit of a strawman. As others have also stated here, it's someone's willingness to stand up and fight the Republicans, their willingness to take a stand on an issue that gets the netroots fired up. It's not simply shrillness for shrillness's sake.

No more voting for the war before voting against it, ok?

On a side note, I'd challenge Hackett on exactly which "liberals" WANT to see the President fail in Iraq. It's not that we WANT him to fail, it's that we could see it was a failure FROM THE START.

I think that standing up for your beliefs is crucial for the Democratic party, and a lot of DC insiders seem obsessed instead with 1) tactics and 2) bashing their own side.  This is the basic divide, and why I take such strong objection to Matt parroting the shrill bit.  A real opposition party doesn't wring their hands and raise their finger to the wind to figure out what to say.  A real opposition party has principles which they use to determine their policies, and the whole tactical question is entirely secondary....

Ah but, the problem you are identifying in your complaint for me is that 2/3 of Americans don't like leftist principles. If the Democratic party is shrill about those, you lose, maybe not in a local San Francisco race, but definitely nationally.

Hackett, for example, could be described as shrill about some things, but he's no liberal. I've seen liberals rant wild on some of the things he believes and presents. And he tempered his anti-Bush stance with a commercial with Bush in it. How much you want to bet he's willing to have a Sister Souljah moment with a PETA person or a strict gun control advocate at the appropriate time in the future?

The opposite is also true; James Dobson could not win a national election, and the majority got mad at DeLay's Schiavo gambit, for example.

In actuality, partly what you are blaming the DLC for is for being tactical about not coming out and offending the liberal base, not the rest of the country, you see? So what you are complaining about is that they are not pissing you off enough by saying more clearly what they actually think the right policies should be.

Bill Clinton thinks we should stay the course a bit longer in Iraq to train enough Iraqis. But he tries to word it carefully so as not to inflame the "withdraw now" base. He could instead be yelling "people who think we should withdraw now are stupid." This angers passionate people that he won't come out and say what he thinks "straight", that's the whyfore of the "slick willie" phrase. That's also why he's considered a brilliant politician.

Bush/Rove does this too, with hot button divisive "base" issues. For instance, Bush tells his friend on the phone that he doesn't like it when the far right bashes gays, but he doesn't come out and say it in public. Shrub and Poppy both lend support (often carefully staged off the White House property) to "pro-life" forces, while most insiders know that Barbara and Laura are basically pro-choice.

Yes, getting basic beliefs across for an image for a party is important and the argument is strong that Democrats haven't done well at there. But in the end, you are arguing against the democratic process, you are being like a Sunni fundamentalist in Iraq, if you can't see that winning is about building coalitions and manipulating them, stirring some factions up at certain times and asking them to take a back seat at others.

Aren't you basically saying you hate politics? What you are complaining about is nothing new. The only thing that has changed in the last decades is that instead of ward bosses pushing "shrill" factions around, telling them when to shut up, promising them something in return later, everything became manipulating through media messages. The messages have to be timed at the right time, not to turn off other factions needed to win. Personally, now I think we've gone back to the ward boss thing a little bit with bloggers and their dittohead groups; that's the only change that politicians haven't learned to deal with so far. The "shrill" base comes out exactly at inopportune moments when the politician is trying to "forge a deal." The only answer right now in this transitional period of the way the system operates is for the big net-base places to start to "self-police" some on message, like the freepers have long done. And I see the DLC trying to encourage that by their mild attacks on some blogosphere tactics.

Personally, I hate all of this, I hate spin, but it's the reality of politics, has always been so as long as there has been voting. Is why I hate politics. But pretending that's not the way it works is just dumb. You cannot force culture change, and in the meantime someone has to do what has to be done to get elected and govern.

So to sum it up, Matt's question is really important: What does the base want? But it needs an extension: What is the base willing to give up? The liberal base cannot have everything it wants or the Democrats lose again. That's in actuality where the message that you say you want to see gets scattered.

Do you really think the American people will behold Russ Feingold and say
"Forgive us, you were right all along.
You shall guide us from now on."

Apologies if you felt I was putting words in your mouth. 

The words I found offensive were "the lives of the men and women in our military are far more important then the Iraqis."

I appreciate that you have now moderated that to
"excuse me if I am more concerned with the welfare of the men and women in our military then the people of Iraq." 

But that is somewhat different from what you said in the first place.  It's the difference between my saying "I am more concerned with the lives of my family than the lives of your family" and "the lives of my family are worth much more than the lives of your family".

The former is an admission of the kind of subjective judgement which is an intrinsic and unavoidable part of being human.  The latter is an erroneous attempt at objective judgement that unfairly denigrates the lives of some human beings at the expense of others.

If all you meant was "I am more concerned with the welfare of the men and women in our military then the people of Iraq" then while I would feel differently, I'd think you had the right to your opinion.

But I could only respond to what you said - which I found clearly offensive - as opposed to what meant to say.

Anyway I accept the clarification and hope there's no hard feelings.

Let me clarify Brian.  Do I feel the invasion of Iraq was just?  No, and I dare say almost criminal.  Do I feel the Iraqi people are enduring nightmarish misery?  Yes.  Do I feel the best thing for the Iraqi's is getting our occupation troops out of their country and off their sovreign soil as soon as we can?  ABSOLUTELY!!  But as much as my heart aches for them, my heart aches even more for the families of our fallen service personnel.  People like Cindy Sheehan...

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, no hard feelings...

Not my ideas, but another important post from Juan Cole, proposing an Iraq policy.

See Ten Things Congress Could Demand from Bush on Iraq

It's not reality based to be aware that Halliburton just happens to benefit from no-bid contracts in Iraq after Chaney had been their CEO? Rewarding your donors and benefactors was never considered by Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld? Sounds pretty close to right on the money to me.

I disagree, as the support for Herseth, Hackett, Casey, etc... has demonstrated. Everyone loves a cheering on at times, but as a prectical matter this just isn't true.

I think a lot of folks don't get it. Lack of abject awe and support for power players political careers doth not equal ideological inflexibility. What it means is that few out there give a damn if Senator Blowhard keeps his job or not, just so long as it doesn't utterly flip the balance of power. Thus there is little to no respect for a Geppy blatantly sucking up on something as fundamental as unjustified war in order to keep his Presidential bonafides in place.

Evan Bayh? Hillary C? Great! Nothing better than a de-facto set of nobles with inherited position.

Understand...a lot of us are merely not going to behave asd deemed proper in the rarified circles of power. It has little to do with ideology, and a lot more to do with a simple lack of respect or deference.

What is Rumsfeld's "corporate agenda"?

Google is your friend :

During the past decade, the major weapons makers have made generous campaign contributions to key members of Congress and invested tens of millions of dollars in their already formidable Washington lobbying operations. Weapons industry Political Action Committees' contributions have favored Republicans over Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin.

Since 1997, the top four missile defense contractors have doled out more than $4 million in PAC contributions and almost $3 million in soft money. But this lavish giving pales in comparison with what these firms spend on lobbying each year: an estimated $18 million.

And this:

Of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, the government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon, at least nine have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. Four members are registered lobbyists, one of whom represents two of the three largest defense contractors.

The board's chairman, Richard Perle, resigned yesterday, March 27, 2003, amid allegations of conflicts of interest for his representation of companies with business before the Defense Department, although he will remain a member of the board. Eight of Perle's colleagues on the board have ties to companies with significant contracts from the Pentagon.

While I don't know if Feingold is their leader, 60%+ of the American public has already gotten the "you were right" part.

If only Feingold's Democratic colleagues saw it the same way, our party might win an election.

So to sum it up, Matt's question is really important: What does the base want? But it needs an extension: What is the base willing to give up? The liberal base cannot have everything it wants or the Democrats lose again. That's in actuality where the message that you say you want to see gets scattered.

This member of the base isn't giving one more inch.  You can be a party that starts immediately after the election deciding what you are going to give up or you can be a party that starts immediately after the election deciding how you can convince another 5% of Americans to your own point of view.  As long as your entire strategy is giving up, it's going to be darn hard to convince Americans you are either moral or tough enough to lead. 

You know what I liked about Feingold on ABC yesterday?  Not only did he talk about pulling out of Iraq, he talked about health care.  He put a real issue out on the table, an issue the Dems should have been working on since Hillary screwed it up nearly 15 years ago. 

If the Dems can't be a party that is FOR something and offers something, and stands for something, then maybe we need a new party. 

The Republicans can "frame" because they have painted the picture.  The Dems have no picture and think they can win selling the frame.

I disagree, as the support for Herseth, Hackett, Casey, etc... has demonstrated. Everyone loves a cheering on at times, but as a prectical matter this just isn't true.

And for every Herseth, there's a Tom Daschle, if not 4 or 5 of them.  Lieberman, Bayh, you yourself brought up Hillary, the list is long.  They aren't ideologically pure, they don't snarl and bark (well, Hillary does, but the left doesn't always  like her targets), so they might as well be Republicans, because taking positions that are popular with the mainstream of this country is somehow "flipping the balance of power."  That statement alone says it all.  

"Furthermore, Bush should insist the constitution should be a secular one that dont restrict women's rights."

I think it would arrogant to insist that the Iraq government look anything like ours, particularly concerning cultural issues like religion and women's rights.  The best we can do is offer advice on arriving at a government that they can agree to even if it is not one we would want to live under.

Luigi you see the choice for Americans as between the "flow" (Republicans) and the "go with the flow" (Democrats).

As a matter of fact, I don't believe this at all, as I've repeatedly tried explaining to you in the past.  I believe you should shape the flow when you can, bend with it when you can't.  So do the Republicans ("Culture of life," instead of coming out strongly against abortion rights is another of the long list of examples), so does the Democratic leadership, so does the smart part of the Republican base (big business).  Unfortunately, there is a large part of the Democratic base that  apparently doesn't believe this, an mistakes barks and snarls for results.  

What does the base want? 

Howabout: Competence Now!


Demand that they Clean house at the top NOW and get people in there that know how to handle complex and delicate situations -- NOW. 

Demand that they internationalize Iraq problem. 

When they say they can't - point out that Bush the elder had no problem with getting allies to help out.  So it must be them and their incompetence. Drop the Neocon nimrods and bring back the old gaurd. 

Make Jack Danforth the chief of staff in the Whitehouse and role Scowcroff back in.  

Maybe they should have thought twice before they berated Western Europe.  You can't tell our allies that water runs up hill and then expect them to follow your lead, or berate them if they don't

Bang on the competency issue, constantly, it dove tails into campaign theme neatly later on. 

Its not Democrats problem what to do now, its their problem.

There is no way that Democrats should have to try to keep up with their massive and unfolding incompetency. Any solution offered up now would only be wrong the day after tomorrow. So don't even play that game. The real problem is not what to do, it is the who is doing it.

And guess what, thats politics. If they aren't the right who, then the Democrats are the right who.  

Don't worry about what to do now, just ask for competance. 

There's no easy way out of the mess that they have made.  Since everything they do is likely to fail it makes the arguement that they are incompetent stronger over time.

Its not a strategy problem, its a personell problem.

Keep it up and by 2006 they will have a 22 point favorability rating. 

If you point out the incompetence of the administration repeatedly the idea might just stick with the voters. Especially since all their policies are abysmal failures.

Say they are incompetent and let them figure out how to fix it. When they can't then it just proves the point.

Then, after prolonged begging on their part, maybe only then give them some good advice, Tell them to internationalize it - they won't because of the money they are making and the corruption involved - but when they don't, then point out their just greedy incompentent profiteers. 

There are responsible, competant Republicans out there, they are just not allowed into the administration. What little they had have been booted out.

Hey, people, the world is our oyster. They don't know what they are doing and each day it gets worse for them.  Lay it on them. Make them eat the dish that they have served up for them selves.  Show them all the compassion that they show the average American worker. 

There's going to be a comuppance for them, but now's the time to set it up. 

  

we kept our mouths shut about our misgivings and tried to help him win an election because we saw a vulnerable seat.  We compromised.

Bingo. But, of course, our friends over in the Moderate aisle won't ever see that.

We're the Shrill Left! The Michael Moore Left! The Hate America First Left!

Now, where did I put my "Bush is a Nazi" sign...?

Oh, sorry, dude, I put the sign in the closet.  You know, the one with the UV light and the, um, plants growing in it?

Well put.  I would also say that "arguing about foreign policy in good faith" would require an honest evaluation of what would happen in Iraq if we just cut and run.  Sure, it would be peachy keen if a hasty exit was the best thing for the Iraqis, but I don't know any serious middle east analysts who believe that.  I protested before the war, but now it's too late to "oppose" it: we went in, we broke it, and 10's of thousands of Iraqis have died as well as 2000 of our own.  We'll have to find the least destructive strategy to exit, not just run away from the disaster we created.

REAL. Each candidate to be an individual.

Hackett's attacks were successful because he was a Marine. That was real. People expect a Marine to punch a bastard in the nose. It wasn't that Bush was the target. It was that Hackett was a Marine and you BELIEVED it. Hillary couldn't call him a son of a bitch--even if it is true. What is going to kill her is that the Republicans have already developed the perfect anti-Hillary weapon. "She will do or say anything for power." This theme is always the rejoinder to any comment about Hillary.

The Clinton folks better brush up on their Reagan. She has got to start finding every movie character and popular culture figure who has overcome the "sold my soul" smear. And she should start out every speech with a joke about the only reason she even came today was that she heard that the organizers of the event needed someone who would tell the audience just what they wanted to hear. "I'm not going to lie to you...Oops. Let me start out again." "I'm only running for office because I am a power hungry woman...unlike my opponent who is a man."

The main thing for Democratic candidates--what the base wants--is regular and real as possible. Schweitzer is a Montana farmer. He'll sound stupid trying to sound like he "really gets Rap Music." So let the Republicans have the big hair and the fake boobs. Keep it real.

Thus there is little to no respect for a Geppy blatantly sucking up on something as fundamental as unjustified war in order to keep his Presidential bonafides in place.

I disagree with your interpretation of Congressman Gephardt's actions. I reject the notion that he doing it for his presidential aspirations. The political motive here was to help a handful of Democratic Representatives in districts where Bush was popular, and where Bush got very high marks on the war.

When big majorities in your home district support some policy, it is sometimes the height of foolishness to oppose that policy.

The "Presidental bonafides" explanation doesn't hold water. Mr. Gephardt is a smart guy, smart enough to know that his early support for Mr. Bush wasn't going to endear him to the primary voters. He did what he did to help the party.

The 2002 elections didn't go well for the Democrats, and maybe you think things would have gone better had he adopted a different strategy. We'll never know. My view is that there is nothing Bush would have liked better going in to the election than to have all the Democrats voting against his resolution so he could tar the whole lot as "soft on terror."

Maybe you expand beyond Halliburton to the "corporate-think" of the admistration:  they didn't have enough troops for the war, so Rummy pushed his theory that traditional large deployments weren't necessary. Etc., etc., etc. 

"It's The Shrillness, Stupid" is a bit of a strawman.

I don't think so. I think there are some pretty shrill people on the left, they're the mirror image of all those Rt Wing names we like to throw around to personify them. Both sides have fringes.

it's someone's willingness to stand up and fight the Republicans, their willingness to take a stand on an issue that gets the netroots fired up. It's not simply shrillness for shrillness's sake.

I don't see it. Actually the "support" from what I call the angst-left is often tainted with a lot of kvetching. What seems to get them fired up are fringe views. If more people on the far left could get fired up to compromise, becasue it's the optimal solution, then we'd be in better shape. Unfortunatly they just don't seem to think that way.

If you look at the far religious right for example, they've been successful becasue they've been organized, patient, compromised, and as a result are getting their people on the supreme court, in the WH, control congress, etc, etc.

For example gay marriage. I'm a big supporter of gay marriage,  but the way it was handled was an unmitigated disaster. It was a big symbolic declaration of war, followed by several defeats. And then if you speak with some people, they're even against all mariage on principle. While that has some abstract merits, it's so totally unpopular, I have to wonder if the advocates have any sense of reality at all.

So, yeah, I think the complaints about some small but vocal part of the left being shrill, are totally merited.

Probably the one single thing we could do to start winning elections is to shut up the shrill left, whose policies don't have a chance anyways, and start getting the moderates to edge left. But the Rt Wing loves the culture wars, and the shrill on the left love to give it to them. 

"I think it would arrogant to insist that the Iraq government look anything like ours, particularly concerning cultural issues like religion and women's rights."

If we can impose women's rights on these 8th century throwbacks we should. Maybe we can't, and if that is so, it is a terrible tragedy, but let's not dress our inability or pusillanimity as quasi-tolerance based on cultural relativism. That is a diservice to all concerned.

IMHO, women's rights is the issue that must be addressed, if Islam is ever going to join us in the third millenium.  Patronizing repressive behavior is not tolerance. How could it possibly be?

Ah but, the problem you are identifying in your complaint for me is that 2/3 of Americans don't like leftist principles

And why is that? Why don't they like "leftist principles"? Is it because the American people have considered "leftist principles" in a calm, reasoned manner and rejected them as wanting? Or is it because right-wingers have engaged in a 20 year program to smear anything that even remotely smells of "leftist principles" and Democrats, suffering from 60s-era post traumatic stress disorder, have let them get away with it?

Maybe the people might actually start approving of "leftist principles" if some politicians actually started espousing them in a way that the people could fairly judge them?

"If we can impose women's rights on these 8th century throwbacks we should."

I think you are stereotyping all of the Iraqi people unfairly.

"IMHO, women's rights is the issue that must be addressed, if Islam is ever going to join us in the third millenium"

I thing you are stereotyping all of Islam unfairly.

If we want to make progress we must stop associating the behavior of a group based on the actions of a few.  I would have though that most people would have learned that by now.

Of course the Iraq war will splinter the Democratic Party - it will splinter the Republican Party as well.  It's split the country.  The problem is that there is no good answer. 

The curent plan of "staying the course" is in and of itself insufficient.  At least Hackett gives us a goal we can sink our teeth into.  Of course it won't work, but I know where we are at and it gives the Iraqis the idea that we want to leave and aren't interested in staying.  That is a hell of a lot better than what we are getting now.  The current administration hasn't commited to anything except we must finish the task.  What the hell does that mean?  What's the task?  When will we know its accomplished?   It all sounds pretty, but finishing the task gets us no where. 

It helps when you sleaze around with Bagman Toricelli, of course.

I usually don't question ratings, but that is going to change with any rating I get below "3".  But I would like to now how this post rated a "2" in your mind Nightprowlkitty?

There's a big difference between not responding and taking too long to respond. Also, it's kind of a stretch to even say that Mr. Kerry took too long to respond. He responded on the very next day when a reporter asked a question.

What did take him a long time to do was to get all huffy and puffy and indignant, which was what he probably should have done from the start. The Kerry campaign was obsessed with rapid response, and they responded rapidly.

Clinton did not show much spine during the 1992 election when trying to explain what he did during the war. He never organized a protest against the war, he said. Later, after some facts came out, he explained himself by saying that he in fact didn't organize the protest, he just <B<helped</B> organize it. This is not remarkably good parsing of words. This is evasive speech that most picked up on and of much the same sort that later on got him into a great deal of trouble.

If Clinton had showed any guts, he could have said, "Yes, I opposed the war, I protested against it, and I did what I could to stay out of the fighting," and avoided the whole mess. Instead he let it drag out for weeks. Some have speculated that he had a pathological desire to be liked, a desire that both helped and hurt him as a politician.

Oliver North was not pardoned. He was found guilty by a jury, and his conviction was overturned by an appeals court.

Other than the rather racist comment about the value of Iraqi lives, your comment did nothing but regurgitate what has been repeated many times on this site.

Bullsh*t Mr. Brown.  My statements were not anti-arab in any way, shape or form.  Many people are dying in Darfur, using that logic Bush can be called a racist for not doing anything to stop it.  Second I (and obviously many others) believe the same thing about the wanton loss of life in an unilateral invasion and occupation of a country who had not attacked the US.

I sense a large degree of willingness to elevate shrill rhetoric over actual policy. Dick Gephardt, having done more than any other member of the Democratic Party to land the country in Iraq, was able to recapture the hearts of many bloggers by calling Bush a "miserable failure."

Beg your pardon, but Paul Hackett was anything but shrill, whereas Dick Gephardt's constant harps about Bush being a 'miserable failure' (which I agree with) came off as contemporary democratic whining.  I liked Gephardt's policies but couldn't bear to hear him speak.  Same thing for Gore, same thing for Kerry.  For many in this country, it's come down to this: are you able to deliver lines that make a punch, and not rely solely on content?

Wow! I hit a nerve.  

You were whining about your 2 rating.  I pointed out that your comment was worth no more then 3 for the reasons stated, that's all.

BTW, since when did it become Bushes job to help Darfur?  Would he not be accused of acting unilaterally?  Isn't that the UN's job?

The question is always "who is it, that should be bashed?"  Fighting the partisan fight, without the strategic vision will not advance the cause.  It certainly will not make it possible for more progressive, more just policies to be enacted.

The problem is not just the elected representatives, but the economic royalists who back and advance them.  With the economic landscape being tilted increasingly against those who work (as opposed to those who "invest") a progressive voice needs to speak directly about the situation. 

Add to our economic royalists those who would restrict our civil freedoms in the name of fear.

And of course, there are our culturkampf folks, too, who want to intrude their nose into our lives.  As if we are not responsible for our choices.  

Bashing the opponent only works when we stand for something big.  The Other Side knows what it stands for, and so has the freedom to bash.  Our challenge  is to articulate the big ideals that we can rally around, THEN go out and do the bashing,helping our neighbors see that if they want more economic opportunity for themselves and their children, if they want to live in freedom, if they want to have a government that trusts them to live their life -- there most certainly is an alternative....

I posted most of this yesterday at Atrios. Let’s see if we can agree on a few things:

1) Those of us who thought the war was bad from the beginning had reasons for thinking that. The reasons were fairly clear from the outset. Here were – and are – a few of mine:
a. The WMD excuse was false from the beginning. The UN had inspectors in Iraq up until two days (3/17/03) before we attacked (3/19/03) These folks – who, like Scott Ritter, had the expertise to look for WMD’s - continued to say they couldn’t find any, and wanted more time to find them. Additionally, it was clear that the “45 minutes” till destruction by the hands of the Evil Saddam was false on its face, since Saddam had no vehicles, i.e., missiles, to shoot them; this left only a few places, like Israel, that were close enough to get hit in 45 minutes. While Israel’s getting attacked may be in important to us, that would not be an attack on the US.
b. Since the WMD excuse seemed weak at best, Saddam posed no “imminent threat” or any other kind of threat of any consequence at the time. He could not even hit our jets flying over Iraq’s no-fly zone.
c. Those who thought otherwise, based on either Intelligence (which now seems like a rather silly word) or ESP, were WRONG. The intelligence experts were wrong. Those who listened to them were wrong and/or foolish.
d. It seemed clear to many of us that the Bush administration began waging a concerted psychological war literally within minutes of the fall of the WTC buildings. Iraq came out of Rumsfeld’s mouth that very day. We had an almost immediate “war on terror” (not just a war on terrorism) that was designed to induce fear and terror every time it was mentioned – which seemed like every other second some days. We also soon had a war against “evil” and “evildoers,” particularly those members of the “Axis of Evil”, which Bush described in one of his more candid moments as a “crusade”. It seemed crystal clear that we had now entered into an apocalyptic or mythic age where the forces of Good were threatened by the forces of Evil, who needed to be destroyed. This sounded all too biblical, and, therefore, a poor excuse at psychological manipulation that, unfortunately, worked. However, it had nothing to do with the actual situation at hand. That was all clear to many of us. The fact that they were attempting to use these techniques on us led many to conclude that they had other unspoken designs - or not so unspoken, given what they all said they wanted to do in their PNAC ramblings.
e. It seemed foolish to many of us that we were actually attempting to frame out an aggressive/offensive war as “defense.” As I said to numerous people before the war began, turn off the sound and watch any sports event. It is not hard to tell who’s playing offense and who’s playing defense. When we – the US – was aggressively pushing forward toward Iraq, and Saddam kept backing up, (letting in inspectors, releasing documents when requested) how could Iraq possibly be framed as the aggressor? By what stretch of logic could we really claim our posture was defensive?
f. Additionally, the “Iraqi Freedom” excuse seemed equally lame once the war was ramped up. We weren’t interested in freeing Iraq; Americans didn’t give a rat’s ass about Iraqi’s and whether they were free. (Of course there were and are some Americans who did and do care about Iraqi’s; most of us, however, didn’t  - and don’t) We went into Iraq because America was scared after 9/11. Americans believed the lies told by the Bush administration, that this war would relieve that terror – our terror, our fear.
g. Since real Americans would have to actually die to pursue this war, we owed it to them to send them to war for good reasons. We failed to do so. This is a profound moral failure on anyone’s part who supported the war.

2) Those of us who had doubts about this war and expressed them were RIGHT. You owe America an apology for your support of a demonstrably wrong war. You all owe us and America an apology for all the bad things you said about us, how un-American we were and are; moreover,
a. Since we then sent our military over to Iraq, more than 1800 of whom have died, along with thousands of others injured, you owe them a much bigger apology for supporting an effort that resulted in their deaths and maimings.
b. Those of us who saw things more accurately than the rest of you should be given greater credence now as to how we should extricate ourselves from this mess. Our vision was more clear than yours before, and is now as well.
c. Democrat officials, elected or otherwise, including Bill Clinton, who didn’t get any of this, either in the run up to the war or since, need to either fess up or run for Ken Mehlman's spot in the RNC. Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich were right. They were wrong. Period.
d. The fact that Bush was wrong in his causus belli before the war bears a direct relationship to its continued failure. Many bad ideas, born in Bush’s PNAC-inspired ideological hell before the war, have led to a continuing flow of other bad ideas. The war was not a good idea gone bad; it is a bad idea gone worse.

3) Most importantly, there is no good reason to listen to much of anything the Bush administration has to say on Iraq now. The fact that they went to war based on bad intelligence (if that was the real reason) is their fault, their error. We’ve heard nothing from them that indicates any contrition, any self-reflection. They need to admit their error. Bush should do that to Cindy Sheehan. Since he’s a Christian in name only that won’t happen any time soon. a. “Everyone” didn’t think Saddam had WMD’s before the war. Every time Bush says that he’s lying. Maybe everyone Bush talked to believed that; if so, he needs new advisors. b. There is no reason to trust that anyone who fell for the Bush line of bullshit before the war, who failed to see that this was flawed from its inception, is now in a good position to figure out what to do.

4) Finally, any Democrat who disagrees with this doesn’t deserve to be President in 2008. 

If we can't agree on this, what possible sense is there to discuss any finesse "what do we do now" BS? It makes no sense to me to pile more bad thinking on the abysmally poor reasoning of so many in both parties. The Bush administration failed miserably prior to this war. They failed to make a coherent case for the war - at least to me. I see no reason to follow them further down the rabbit hole. If we cannot agree on these indisputable facts about how we got to this point, what makes us think we can actually correct our course now?

The only plus for your comment is your revealing comment on how you value non-American life (racist or not).

Live and let live.  I don't want to see anyone killed at the hands of another human, and especially at our country's hands.

"<span class="Apple-style-span">The good news is we can successfully exit Iraq once the roughly 140,000 Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are adequately trained and skilled enough to defend their fledgling government."</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">This is an odd comment, to say the least. Judging from the news that the ISF is being used as a cover for the maintenance of various party militias, its accuracy really depends on what "successfully exit" means. I suppose if a "successful exit" is one in which US troops are withdrawn in a prelude to a civil war in which "friendly" factions in Kurdistan and the Shi'a south divide the country's oil wealth, suppress the Sunni insurgency and form pro-US government(s) in Iraq, it could be accurate enough. If, however, the creation of a pluralistic government is part of the criteria of assessment, I can't see how it's much more than a fantasy.</span&gt

JMACSF:

Excellent BBC video clip of British MP Galloway ripping Senator Coleman a new one.

You make a good argument but I don't agree with your solution.

The issue at this point is not to have a detailed plan that is better. The issue now is to throw the bums out.

If you study the swing and last minute undecided voters in the last election that helped Bush win, a popular answer was "I finally decided that it wasn't good to switch horses mindstream in a war, especially if the other horse had no answers," and the related "I went for devil I knew."

Right now polls show that a majority is angry about things like no one is doing anything about it, no one is doing their work (especially Congress, both Dems and GOP, actually lower respect for Dems,) no one is taking responsibility, no one is being a leader.

By not offering anything, no answers, no leadership, by just using attacking faults, I don't see the Dems winning in this situation. Especially in 2008--if you just continue with the negatives, I see someone like John McCain becoming a good "devil I know." He's made himself just enough of a reputation for criticizing Bush (torture issue, for example) while offering leadership and ideas too.

"When they say they can't - point out that Bush the elder had no problem with getting allies to help out. So it must be them and their incompetence."

<i>The case for the first gulf war was more straight forward since Saddam had invaded another country and the UN resolution did not authorize removing Saddam from power so it was a much easier sell</i>

Well, yes. They incompetently got us into a war that they couldn't get support for.

If they need allies and can't get them, that shows up their incompetence that much more.

Of course, they can point out that there aren't enough soldiers in the world to give us the help we need in iraq. Which points out that they went in with not nearly enough troops, against expert advice, and now there aren't any allies strong enough to help us out. Except possibly russian and china.

They made jumped into this cooking pot themselves, let them stew in it.

By not offering anything, no answers, no leadership, by just using attacking faults, I don't see the Dems winning in this situation. Especially in 2008--if you just continue with the negatives, I see someone like John McCain becoming a good "devil I know."

The situation is different now. The argument that we should stay with Bush because he's in a war -- remember the one about the kid who chopped up both her parents with an axe, and then said the court should be lenient because she was an orphan?

Bush lied us into this war. Then he waged it incompetently. If he'd done a good job we would have been out in six months or less.

The issue for 2006 isn't which congressmen have an ideal plan to clean up the mess like it never happened and bring the dead back to life. The issue is  "Fool Me Twice?". Congressmen who got fooled past the point they shouldn't have been, don't deserve another chance. Congressmen who helped fool us don't deserve another chance.

It's up to incumbents' parties to provide a good alternative candidate in the primaries. It's up to challengers' parties to provide a good alternative in the election, if the primary got botched.

It is not up to any congressmen or any democrat to propose a way out of this mess now -- uinless there's an impeachment in progress. Then we want to carefully scrutinise each candidate for the new president and make sure he has some adequate plan.

By the time 2008 comes around and we're still stuck in iraq, then it will be time for a democratic candidate to propose an alternative.

Proposing an alternative is like, cousin George has embezzled everything he could get his hands on from the family business and bet it in the casino and he's lost 3/4 of it. And now the challenge is, "If you're so smart, come up with a way to win our money back in that casino."

The address of Hart for President 2008 Campaign Committee


It is way too early to get into this ..but right now, Wes Clark and Gary Hart are far and away the class of 2008.


History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we've blown up, and weakening America's national security.
But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on? My generation of Democrats jumped on the hot stove of Vietnam and now, with its members in positions of responsibility, it is afraid of jumping on any political stove. In their leaders, the American people look for strength, determination and self-confidence, but they also look for courage, wisdom, judgment and, in times of moral crisis, the willingness to say: "I was wrong."
To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration's misfortune is the Democrats' fortune, is cowardly. In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: "I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me."


Further, this leader should say: "I am now going to give a series of speeches across the country documenting how the administration did not tell the American people the truth, why this war is making our country more vulnerable and less secure, how we can drive a wedge between Iraqi insurgents and outside jihadists and leave Iraq for the Iraqis to govern, how we can repair the damage done to our military, what we and our allies can do to dry up the jihadists' swamp, and what dramatic steps we must take to become energy-secure and prevent Gulf Wars III, IV and so on."

 No Democrat, especially one now silent, should expect election by default. The public trust must be earned, and speaking clearly, candidly and forcefully now about the mess in Iraq is the place to begin.


The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course" even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken. The truth is we're way off course. We've stumbled into a hornet's nest. We've weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began.


Who now has the courage to say this?