It took awhile but the Dems are realizing that they have to grow up and face hard facts on Iraq. They appear to have passed puberty and they're now more like in the gawky teenage boy stage but the Democrats have had their little fling with the nutroots floozy and have decided they may like the more strait laced, mature type:
In the first place, the netroots candidates are losing. In the various polls on the Daily Kos Web site, John Edwards, Barack Obama and even Al Gore crush Hillary Clinton, who limps in with 2 percent to 10 percent of the vote.
...Clinton has established this lead by repudiating the netroots theory of politics. As the journalist Matt Bai makes clear in his superb book, "The Argument," the netroots emerged in part in rebellion against Clintonian politics. They wanted bold colors and slashing attacks. They didn't want their politicians catering to what Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the Daily Kos calls "the mythical middle."
But Clinton has relied on Mark Penn, the epitome of the sort of consultant the netroots reject, and Penn's approach has been entirely vindicated by the results so far.
This is on the heels of President Bush conveying info to Hillary about how the war will continue and what will happen if she were to suddenly retreat. Listen, I may not like Hillary but the woman is pragmatic, she knows the consequences of presidential action and inaction and one suspects she learned alot while dealing with the routine "bimbo eruptions," bombings of aspirin plants and other difficulties of Bubba's two-terms. By Bush reaching out, he's showing that the good of the country outweighs the good of the party and that's refreshing.
The Democratic voters know damn well that whether we like it or not, we are in two wars and the war in Iraq is of the utmost importance at this point. To just pull stakes and leave is not an option and the candidates who say they will do that look inane and are suffering in the polls because of it. Everyone wants to believe in rose-scented options like Murtha's ridiculous redeploy to Okinawa plan or other idiotic schemes, yet finishing what we started and leaving a stable democracy is the only option.
It seems as if Hillary understands this and by recognizing that salient fact has cemented her lead. In November 2008 we'll look back on this election and see that Hillary did the right thing in the primaries, she didn't lock herself in too much on the war and left her options open to remain hawkish when it was be needed in the general.
It looks as though the nutroots will lose another battle in their eternal quest for supremacy of the party and thank the good Lord that's the case. Their victory means defeat for America and their ascendancy would mean death to a viable Democratic party.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. "Finishing what we started and leaving a stable democracy is the only option. "
No, it isn't, because we are never going to be able to do that. I have to think that the writer of this 'article' (read: propaganda) is an extreme conservative and neo-con.
The best thing that we could do in Iraq is to GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE, and allow the civil war to go through it's course, while allowing as many people who want to flee Iraq into our countries and the countries of our allies as possible.
Christopher Kidwell at 9:12PM on Sep 25th 2007
2.
The population is steady in its assessment of Iraq; it wants us out NOW. Politicians who disregard this will pay a price.
Just because does not want his policy to be a failure while he is in the White House is not a good reason for our troops getting killed. Nor is protecting oil reserves for Bush's corporate friends.
cdnbirch at 12:32AM on Sep 26th 2007
3. I agree with Scott. I love the "idea" of just pulling out, but one does have to be pragmatic. It is going to take a lot of time and patience to get out of Iraq and there are so many consequences that we must bear and consider...whether you were for the war or not. In 2002, I was in favor of the war along with 63-68% of Americans across the board. (The polls did vary a little.)
For me, it was Colin Powell's testimony before the UN and, let's face it...we were still hurt and angry over 9/11 and bombing a country back to the Stone-Age that never left there was not very satisfying. (I am referring to Afghanistan.)
But, I changed, as we all did. I healed and realized we had been lied to by Colin Powell (the only person in the Bush White House I trusted) and our own President. It was a unique time in US history. We made some mistakes, but we have to be practical about how we leave things there and when. Hillary was brilliant not to "pledge" to anyone anything concrete on Iraq.
You may not feel a responsibility to what happens to "those people", but this country has one and I believe Hillary is qualified to get us out when and how is best. We are not children...so, accept what we have to do and bear it.
Respectfully,
Mr. Clark
Mr. Clark at 1:04AM on Sep 26th 2007
4. "The folks who gave us the Willie Horton ads, the Swift boat campaign, the purges of black voters in Florida and endless other dirty electoral tricks are at it again. Like crack addicts confronting the irresistible vial, the evil geniuses of the G.O.P. can't seem to help themselves. This time -- with an eye toward seizing the White House again next year, even if they lose the popular vote -- they're trying to rewrite the rules for the distribution of electoral votes in California…
"Under current law, all of California's 55 electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote statewide. This ''winner take all'' system is the norm in the U.S. It's in place in all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, which have just four and five electoral votes, respectively. Now comes a move, from lawyers with close ties to the Republican Party, to scrap the current system in California and replace it with one that would divide up the electoral votes in a way that would likely give 20 or more of them to the candidate who loses the popular vote in the state…Under this new proposal, the 20 or more electoral votes that would be denied the winner of the statewide vote in California could well be enough to hand the White House to a Republican candidate who loses the popular vote nationally…
"…The effort to change the way Californians vote for president has been cloaked in the typically deceptive garb that the G.O.P. pulls out for its underhanded maneuvering. The proposal has been dubbed the ''Presidential Election Reform Act.'' It is being led by Thomas Hiltachk of Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk, a law firm that has represented both the state Republican Party and G.O.P. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. According to The Associated Press, the firm was also linked to a political committee, largely funded by Bob Perry, that targeted Democratic candidates in 2006. Mr. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, contributed millions of dollars to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose intense and deceptive campaign in 2004 was so damaging to the candidacy of John Kerry. This crowd is no more interested in genuine electoral reform than Britney Spears is."
rn at 2:02AM on Sep 26th 2007
5. #4 (m) RELAX! This isn't relative to the blog, but for what it is worth...if they get enough signatures it will be voted on in June and even the GOP Governor is against it. A Democratic state will never dilute its Electoral votes. It will go down in flaming defeat, so, PLEASE RELAX about that. Californians will never go for it.
Sincerely,
Mr. Clark
Mr. Clark at 2:34AM on Sep 26th 2007
6. Cool Down DEMS....You are going to get your chance next year..I am an indpndt..I am fed up with these REPS.corrupted administration...DEMS. going to get the CONGRESS and the PRESIDENCY....Dont follow these people after you get your power...GOT TO PROVE ALL THE CORRUPTIONS THESE PEOPLE MADE AND BRING THEM TO THE AMERICAN PUBLICS....OUR COUNTRY IS VERY CORRUPTED AND IS LIKE A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY NOW....
gt at 7:31AM on Sep 26th 2007
7. How much I distrusted Bush from the beginning, we are brought here and I have to agree we can't leave now. The fact that this administration put our country in this position and have yet to come close to finding Bin Laden is leaving a bad taste in the mouths of our citizens and people are willing to go to the other extreme without thinking. this was well thought out by this admin and used the emotional turmoil built up with citizens, the military and congressmen alike to make a case for war on a country that shares the same religion of those who attacked our country on 9/11. It is deceiving, immoral and wrong, but that is how businesses thrive. How can we get mad at a bunch of wealthy men who want to take over the world to do what they did because it is typical capitalism and individualism. Well we can and so am I.
We can't change what happened. We need to find the best way to get out of Iraq that will do good for both the Mid East region and the U.S. I have yet to hear that from anyone in Washington. I only have heard 2 ideas.
David McCool at 9:54AM on Sep 26th 2007
8. David McCool,
Man, I hope I get to your state...sooner than later. I should have trusted my initial instincts about Bush from the beginning and realized the "brilliance" of what he was truly up to when you did.
You are a great lesson for me...maybe not react emotionally or so quickly and take a step back and think about the bigger picture as you apparently were able to do. I am glad you responded to this blog...you have actually taught me something of value and given me something to think about today that will actually help me be a better person in the long run.
Sincere thanks,
Mr. Clark
Mr. Clark at 12:07PM on Sep 26th 2007
9. The author hits it right on the head. All you have to do is listen to the way Hillary's spoken in the past year. Her rhetoric is way down. She speaks in a much more moderate tone of voice. She's very smart and very driven. I think she'll win.
The big surprise for everyone, both Democrat and Republican, is that her administration and tenure will very much resemble what Bush has done. Republicans will find she's not as "whacked out" as they had painted her with, just as Bush is not as crazy as Dems paint him. Both are pragmatistic moderates dealing with harsh and complicated realities. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing in both cases. I was happy with Bush and will have no problems voting for Hillary.
toshiro at 12:56PM on Sep 26th 2007
10. Scott,
The Democrats my be maturing a bit, but I'm not so sure about Hillary. Did you get a chance to see her in action during the Chris Wallace interview?
She cut lose a cackle that melted the ice in my Burbon. The Hillary cackle....have mercy!
willet at 5:09PM on Sep 26th 2007
11. Thank you Mr. Clark.
David McCool at 5:20PM on Sep 26th 2007
12. FINALLY? WHY DO I DOUBT THAT? MAYBE BECAUSE I KNOW SOME OF THE BIG BABY, SCARDY CAT, WHINNING ASSES?
Pamela at 5:58PM on Sep 26th 2007
13. WE DONT NEED GAWKY TEENAGED BOYS OR GIRLS AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE MEN AND WOMEN IN OUR MILITARY. ONCE THEY BELIEVE, "WE WILL PAY ANY PRICE AND BARE ANY BURDEN" AS JFK DID THEN MAYBE THEY WILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AGAIN.
CONNIE at 7:07PM on Sep 26th 2007
14. THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT LIE ABOUT THE WAR SINCE THEIR CAMPAIGNS BEGAN, DEVIDING THE COUNTRY WITH THEIR RETERICK. AT FIRST THEY WERE ALL ON BOARD TO PULL THE TROOPS OUT AND END THE WAR. AFTER LAST NIGHTS DEBATE I WOUNDERED WHERE THOSE CANDIDATES WERE. EVERYONE OF THEM WERE COMMITTED TO STAYING! BUNCH OF DEVISIVE FLIP FLOPPERS!! WHEN ARE THEY TELLING THE TRUTH AND WHEN ARE THEY DECEIVING US? HOW ARE WE SUPPOSE TO KNOW WHERE THEY REALLY STAND FOR US TO COMMIT OUR VOTE? SEEMS THEY ARE ALL OVER THE BOARD IN THEIR BELIEFS AND TO ME THATS DECEPTION IN MY FACE SO I HAVE DECIDED TO VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN THIS NEXT YEAR BECAUSE THEY HAVE SAID AND NOT WAVERED ON THE ISSUE, AT LEAST I KNOW KNOW WHERE THEY REALLY STAND! I REALIZE WE ARE NOT LEAVING THE MIDDLE EAST BE A DEM OR A REPUB IS NOMINATED SO I'LL GO WITH THE GUY WHO TOLD ME THE TRUTH FROM THE GET GO.
MAY at 12:58PM on Sep 27th 2007