War-weary, with a case of White House lust, the Democrats are in a pickle.
With issues like the military vote, and candidate branding breathing heavily, the Democrats must be more than what they tried unsuccessfully to present George Bush as, a one issue candidate.
Liberal activists are in a similar pickle, at least the antiwar ones. While their job, if you will, is to push their pet issue (mind you, the issue of the war is not as trite as I'm making it sound, and believe both Bush and the liberal activists realize this), there are political realities. Candidates do not win on one issue. They win on presenting themselves a person who stands for what the majority stands for. Or something like that.
Bill Clinton won, partly, on his claim that "It's the economy, stupid." Although he called the voting lot stupid, they voted for him, and the economy did, in fact, happen to improve greatly under his watch. Ronald Reagan partly won by focusing on the Cold War, and the Cold War did, in fact, end during his watch. Both of these enormously popular candidates had more going on that this, and so they trounced the poor opposing candidates.
Similarly, it is one thing to talk about how awful Iraq is going until it might be that you're the guy or gal who will calling the shots. What do they people really need to hear? "Cut and run." is the populist phrase among conversatives, and, "Viet Nam," is the phrase touted by the liberal side of the issue.
Poll numbers all point toward Americans wanting the US to leave Iraq. However, there are polls and there are polls. The polls said John Kerry would win the election in 2004, but George Bush did with record numbers of voters on his side. The polls now are equally questionable.
Like the weeks before during the Super Bowl, all kinds of noise was heard about Rex Gossman's merits. The Bears lost the Super Bowl. What should the Bears' coach have done? Don't ask me. This is about Iraq, and what should the Democrats do, among which Hillary Clinton is the lead candidate.
Don't get me wrong. The polls might be right. There lay the gambit. Hillary's own views on Iraq are suspect among liberals and conservatives alike. I think she has a clear and strong view that will leave the troops in longer than antiwar people prefer, and shorter than the democracy for Iraq by force crowd prefer. She's tasting the winds, and is careful because she needs support through the primaries, or, she is just another Ted Kennedy, or, worse yet, John Kerry. People still listen to Kennedy, whilst Kerry has become a one issue voice.
What should the Democrats do to win the White House? They can't align themselves with conservatives, since this will split up liberals who'll vote for the third party candidate du jour. The Democrats need unity. The Republicans will have it, and if the Democrats don't, they lose the most winnable election since Jimmy Carter tried for a first term.
War-Weary Dems Face Heat From Left and Right
CNSNews.com - 4 hours agoBy Susan Jones. (CNSNews.com) - Don't go wobbly on us, liberal activists are telling "nervous" Democrats in Congress, as those Democrats mull the best way to stop what many of them describe as President Bush's war.
Dems to push tough bill on redeployments San Francisco Chronicle
Democratic Leaders Revamp Anti-War Plan ABC NewsHuffington Post - R-N University Observer - Pueblo Chieftain - International Herald Tribune
all 1,017 news articles »