Biden and Bayh ARE OUT as Presidential Contenders

[autorank]

Why would I make such a statement?

Biden, D, Credit Card Industry, was on the lovely Paula Zahn's show and said something like this: We can't cut and run before the job is done. Opposing the war ultimately hurts our soldiers.

Bayh, D, DLC, was on CNN from 9-10 with the sports guy. He said: he did not regret voting to authorize the war and he felt we could still have a positive outcome, i.e., win.

Biden, going to war when it's based on lies hurts our soldiers. Advocating a pull out helps them by limiting their exposure to danger. What a "moran." He's pathetic.

Bayh is delusional. It was a bad vote but he can't admit it. He's talking about winning. What's he taking?

Bayh & Biden, not part of the reality-based community

[rurallib]

1. Amen!

[OKthatsIT]

153. I second that....gawd!

.

[Imagevision]

161. They ALL voted to go to war on bogus intel, what;s the bitch?

All this comes back at the Bush administration, you supply Sentors with bogus (the sky is falling) info they back you up, so why should any senator be reminded of voting to go to war -- no logic-no common sense on this one!

[AlwaysDemocrat]

2. Bayh - my state's Ken Doll...opps..I mean Senator

I am always surprised that he has so little to contribute.

[autorank]

4. John Melancamp for Senator!!!!!

...hey, at least you'd have some hot music with a bad attitude!

[still_one]

6. Bill Moyer for President would be my choice

[Totally Committed]

108. Mellancamp would make an awesome Senator...

but he has a few rock'n'roll-related skeletons in his closet, to be sure. Red-Staters may not vote for him for thos idiotic reasons.

But, I think he'd be amazing. He's articulate, intelligent, and folksy all at the same time. As usual, autorank, we agree!

TC

[IndianaGreen]

143. The farther one travels away from Indiana...

the more people one finds that like Evan Bayh. The only thing that makes Bayh anywhere near palatable, if you can stomach rotting flesh, is that the Republicans run candidates that are to the right of Adolf Hitler.

[JHBowden]

3. Clark was saying the same thing.

Why all of the hate towards Biden and Bayh?

[mike_c]

9. it's equally wrong from Clark....

eom

[autorank]

15. Wait until you see what he says. He opposed the war at the start & still

does; he's critical of the conduct. He is very strong on force protection, but that's not war promotion.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Autorank....

What Clark did with that Faux audience was ingenious....

He starts out lauding Bush for supporting our troups and for saying positives things about them....but then he sets the faux audience up for the harsh reality.

He did say that we have no choice but to win (but the "win" he used is not the "Win" that the Neocons might)...but he said that we are in a dilemna...that we fighting there is only making more terrorists who might not be terrorists if we had not invaded. Talked about how terrorists are being trained in Iraq...and are leaving and going off to Europe to think up of some F&cked stuff to do.

He clearly told his audience that Bush CHOSE TO FIGHT this elective war...that we didn't have to fight.

Also said that Saddam had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11......very clearly, so that even Faux audiences could understand.

Don't take it from me....watch it here
http://www.yellowdogdem.com/062805.WMV

[Gloria]

47. This was Clark's best FOX appearance so far....I haven't been

happy with the others at all. This time, he had enough time to set up Bush with the obligatory praise, then launch into his tough message...

[autorank]

10. I didn't see Clark. I'm sure he's not saying it was a good idea & that

...opposing the war hurts the troops. That's what I find objectionable.

I'm a big Clark supporter and these two positoins, which make me very hostile to Biden in particular (a Viet Nam War argument), would represent major changes.

I'll have to look at what he said. Thanks for the pointer.

[ClarkUSA]

20. autorank, see commentary on Clark's comments here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1892961&mesg_id=1892961


Biden has no clue. Bayh needs to get a clue.

Wes Clark knows what he's talking about. No comparison.

Watch what Clark really said here:
http://www.yellowdogdem.com/062805.WMV

[autorank]

27. ClarkUSA...THANKS.. that's about what I expected and it's fine.

I'd like to know what he means by "win" but I'm OK with ideas. Right now, Bush is just concerned about the drama.

BTW, did you or anybody see him 'tear up' at the end of the speech. What a strange dude this guy is, brought to tears by the carnage he created because he's so fond of it.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Actually, I just watched Clark again...

And I did'nt catch him using the word win. He said we have to get out the right way....we have to prevail.....we have to suceed...but I didn't hear "Win".

Getting out the right way doesn't have to be a "win"...it really is a matter of what it will take to put this thing right as possible....in where the Iraqis are not left fighting a civil war. Leaving that way wouldn't be a "win" in the NeoCons' mindset of "win".....

For the Neocons, a "win" means Iraq becoming the 51st state of the U.S.

[XemaSab]

71. The clowns in charge

see the world as black and white.

Good vs evil.

"With us" vs "against us."

Win vs lose.

[HootieMcBoob]

124. No one is going to "win" this war

Clark is absolutely right as usual.

This was a foolhardy adventure from the outset and on-top of that it's been completely mishandled. No good will come of this.

The only thing to do is to try to get out "the right way" as Clark says. Get more countries involved in training the Iraqis and rebuilding. Get the American contractors and mercenaries out including Halliburton and KBR. Let the Iraqi government contract out the rebuilding and put the Iraqi people back to work in the process.

However, none of this is going to happen with the current incompetents in charge. This thing is going to drag on for years with many more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians being killed and maimed and billions of dollars wasted while the pockets of the war profiteers are filled to overflowing.

[ksclematis]

126. Wes Clark knows exactly

what words he wants to use...he's a master rhetorician! He's the best democratic analyst to be on FOX. His intro was great as were all of his comments. However, I was sorry that FOX couldn't have given him a better time slot than what he had....after "their" pundits had given their (all positive) comments on the speech, then a long commercial (to pay the bills! AND time for viewers to change the channel)....then Wes.
So, how many viewers were lost durng the commercial...Murdock can pay FOX'es bills, can't he?

[Wetzelbill]

155. Clark is an intellectual....that man is damn smart

whether you like him or not, the guy is impressive in many ways.

[LiberalFighter]

82. Bayh wouldn't know how to find a clue.

[still_one]

13. because this is a slaughter for our children

if anyone truly believes we can win in iraq, put your words to action, either join the armed forces or have your children join, anything else is hypocricy

THE AMERICANS AND THE IRAQIIS ARE DYING FOR the oil companies

They lied about weapons of mass desturction
They lied about 9/11 and Iraq

We went to war on a country THAT DID NOT ATTACK US

This is as bad as the Gulf of Tolken

Congress passed their constitutional authority to the president

I am sorry, but there is good reason why they should be scorned

[JHBowden]

Clark believes we can win Iraq.

Moreover, the IWR was passed in October 2002, a time when Iraq was not allowing weapons inspectors into the country. Anyone who thought the war was a good idea in March 2003 when we had inspectors on the ground, however, needs their head examined.

I think the complaint is too broad and would be made more effective if it was more specific.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Where and when did he say that? You are altering his words, I'm afraid.

Let's not do the negative spin, JHBowden.

See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1892961&mesg_id=1892961

[JHBowden]

31. Clark said that tonight.

We must win this thing and stay the course. Did you guys pay attention?

[tishaLA]

56. Nothing at all about "staying the course"

[JHBowden]

59. *I* am correct.

It is in the video. Watch it again.

[tishaLA]

63. I watched it. He never says it

[JHBowden]

70. Watch it again.

I did. Here's what I found.

"We cannot afford to lose, we must prevail."

"Now that we're there, we have to succeed."

"We have to get out the right way, and the right way is when the job is done."

"We must succeed."

Right or wrong, Clark supports the occupation. Is that not obvious?

[Totally Committed]

138. What he says is...

we shouldn't lose. The implication is that an American "loss" at this point would destabilize the area in a way that will only make us more vulnerable.

TC

[MichiganVote]

73. Warner said 'stay the course' on Larry King

[JHBowden]

76. That's exactly my point.

Everyone is going Biden and Bayh support the war, boooooooooooo when Clark, Dean, and others are saying the same shit.

[FrenchieCat]

28. That's not what Clark said.....

and you know it.

In fact Clark said that there is a dilemna even in fighting to win. Said that we are creating more terrorists than there would have been had we not had this war.

Don't twist the General's words. You don't speak for him....for sure!

[JHBowden]

33. "we must win this thing"

is pretty clear to me.

[FrenchieCat]

40. That's cause you don't follow Clark

except to bash him.....As we all know!

[JHBowden]

46. So Clark tells different things to different people?

Wonderful.

[ClarkUSA]

55. So you criticize Clark but not Dean when they are saying the same things?

Very interesting. Why the discrepancy? You seem to have different opinions for different people.

:eyes:

[JHBowden]

62. Dean is wrong too.

But I'm not going to blindly bash Democrats like Bayh and Biden for wanting to stay the course while letting others off the hook. Right or wrong, I am consistent.

Again, the Biden = Satan, Clark = God stuff is retarded since they have the same position on the issue.

[ClarkUSA]

75. You're entitled to your opinions, but I must disagree

autorank has addressed Biden comments in totality.

Many have addressed Wes Clark's comments in totality.

The two men are not saying the same thing at all nor are they coming from the same place.

Your hyperbole is unnecessary.

[mike_c]

66. why are ya'll always trying to say "but he didn't really mean WIN..."

...or whatever? Clark is a militarist. He has either bought into the PNAC inspired "war on terror" or he's trying to use Bush's best trick to pull the wool over folks' eyes.], and he SAYS he wants to win it. That sounds a lot like the war-monger's position to me.

[FrenchieCat]

89. What in the F*ck is a militarist.....

someone who's been in the military?'

So you hate the troups? Sad to hear it.

You must be one of those that keeps making us lose elections cause you don't ever look at the ELECTED CIVILIAN POLICY MAKERS as the ones that gets us into these damn wars?

The Warmongers are in the oval office....and some other ELECTED CIVILIANS in the SENATE AND IN THE HOUSE also helped by voting for this war.

Methinks you are barking up the wrong tree and don't even f*cking know it. :shrug:

That's pretty pathetic.
Why don't you do the wise thing, and start holding those who should be held accountable accountable? For you to DISTRACT away from the real culprits by blaming the military (which I guess are militarists) is a stoopid and an uneducated take on it.

Open your doggone eyes, already! See who really calling the shots....and who puts the policies in place that lead to wars.

Your knee jerk hate of everything military is f*cking killing us (the Democrats) big time.

It was Eisenhower (militarist too, I guess) who stated and forewarned this nation....."beware of the military Industrial Complex"...not Santa Claus or Mickey Mouse or anybody else! Doh!:dunce:

[Texas_Kat]

95. Militarist

a person who advocates war or warlike policies.
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/militarist

Militarism is the ideology that military strength is the source of all security.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Militarism

Okay, I looked it up to make sure I understood the point you were trying to make.

The only point you are making is that you don't know much about WKC nor about anything he's advocated.

Bush's propagandists use terms like this in order to engender a false impression -- to twist the truth. I am surprised to see you using the same tactics.

[mike_c]

127. I simply do not trust generals in government....

I believe that the skills necessary for success as a career military officer are just about as far removed from the skills necessary for civil administration as can be. When the military begins running itself as a participatory democracy I'll re-evaluate that position. Until then, I actually feel safer with a hapless dimwit republican in the presidency than I would with an ex-general who wants to apply military thinking to "winning the war on terror--" a contradiction wrapped inside an impossibility if there ever was one.

By "militarist" I mean a career military officer who approaches leadership from a military perspective rather than from a civil administrative perspective.

[ClarkUSA]

77. Yes, we do know JHBowden, don't we?

:eyes:

[Gloria]

50. Clark explained how we have to work with our allies and countries in

the region to help tighten up borders so that Iraq has a chance to stablize, among other suggestions.

When he says we must "win" it's in the context of bringing stability to the entire Middle East.

He sees the broader implications of what is going on in Iraq and he's not talking just in the military sense...

[Dem4now]

94. Clark makes sense when he says "we must prevail in Iraq"

wtf is wrong with that?

[ClarkUSA]

54. Yes, Dean has said the same thing repeatedly

And yet, you never question Dean.

[Larkspur]

90. Dean is NOT running for President. Clark thinks he is.

Dean can't form Dem policy. A Prez candidate can offer his/her own views on policy, but the DNC chair can not form policy, including foreign policy.

And Dean's position on Iraq hasn't changed from his primary days. The basis of his opinion about "not cutting and running" from Iraq is Afghanistan post Soviet Withdrawal. It's a valid concern.

I can see both sides of the pro-withdrawal and "stay the course" Dem positions. I'd prefer we withdraw, but we must think through the consequences for ours and our allies security needs. Even then we don't know all the players in the Iraqi insurgency and either way, withdrawal or not, we are screwed. That's where a Catch-22 policy puts us.

[FrenchieCat]

97. Oooh....ooooh....my hand is in the air! I have a question!

Does a Catch-22 a Dilemma? if so, you and Clark agree! Whoop, there it is! :headbang:

[CarolNYC]

111. Yep,

Larkspur's really a Clarkie at heart...just hasn't accepted it yet. ;)

[Larkspur]

135. Nope, never like the man. He reminds me of the "Flim-flam" man

You know a Southern con man.

[CarolNYC]

139. I know, that's your story and you're sticking to it...

...but I know better. ;)

[Larkspur]

145. Just remember drug addicts and political supporters, like you,

always hit a depression after the hallucinogen wears off. Go ahead and believe your delusions about me and Clark. I won't stop you.

[CarolNYC]

147. Whew!

You know, until I read this I was really worried that you were going to try to stop me. I should have known you'd be more accommodating than that, I guess. Whew, now I can relax. Thanks for being so nice. You're a good egg. ;)

[Larkspur]

148. I'll have a good laugh at your expense. Thank you.

:evilgrin:

[CarolNYC]

154. Please do.

Seems to me like you could use a good laugh. ;)

[Crunchy Frog]

158. Carol, you're making me

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[CarolNYC]

162. Hey, no problem....

I am an equal opportunity laugh provider.

I must say I am a little surprised at so much attention to a silly little offhand dig that I thought wouldn't even get any notice. I'm reminded of that line from Shakespeare's Hamlet about the one who protests too much...Maybe I'm closer to the truth than I thought I was. :shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

164. Yes, I think you probably are. n/t

[Larkspur]

160. I usually do chuckle at you Clark supporters.

[still_one]

36. well, first of all they haven't defined what winning is

second, we ARE in the middle of a civil war, WHICH WE caused

third UN weapon inspectors were finally allowed in. Read the DSM
fourth blix, the state deparment, brent scrowcroft, schwarkoff(sic), and others, NOT only did not believe we should go into Iraq, but that there were NO weapons of mass destruction, and they were NOT a threat. Iraq was contained

Morally we attacked a country based on a lie. In the end we will have turned a brutal secular state into a brutal Islamic state. Look at the history of the middle east. No western country has occupied it for long, and if you read PNAC, and know that the fourteen permanent bases are because we plan to occupy it, you will understand why we are doomed to failure

We don't understand there culture or religion, and we will NEVER be accepted.

If Clark believes we can win, he is wrong

The only way to win now is open a dialogue with the Iranians, which will NOT happen under this administration

Either way, the longer we stay the more Americans will return in body bags

In Viet Nam the killing stopped when we finally left

[Crunchy Frog]

45. So does Howard Dean.

He's said the exact same thing in very strong terms. So why aren't you being an equal opportunity basher and going after him as well?

I haven't seen the video yet, but my understanding is that Clark very clearly stated that this was an elective war that we didn't have to do and that going in there has made things worse from the terrorism standpoint, also that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that Bush has no plan. Frankly, if either Biden or Bayh would say the same thing, I might seriously consider supporting either one.

I also don't think that Clark and Dean's definition of "winning" is the same as the neocon definition, unlike Biden and Bayh.

[ClarkUSA]

49. Great point - Dean has said that we cannot leave Iraq repeatedly

Glad to see two such good Democrats on the same page.

[still_one]

53. I tend to agree with you on Dean and Clark

all i am saying is as long as we are there we are doomed to fail

[ClarkUSA]

64. Please watch Clark's Fox appearance for yourself

Download it here:
http://www.yellowdogdem.com/062805.WMV

I understand where you're coming from, but Wes Clark's idea of winning is much different than the GOP-PNAC idea of winning. Again, please read the thread link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1892961&mesg_id=1892961

Some people on the above thread address your concerns with far more eloquence than I can muster up.

Thanks for caring so much and we'll all get through this - never forget that Clark understands.

Hang in there!

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. I agree that there can be no Peace until after we leave

i know that Bush went into Iraq planning to set up a permanent American base of operations there. So do almost all Iraqi's. Bush is almost willing failure of the limited mission that it makes some sense for us to complete in Iraq, because he constantly acts like he plans to remake the entire Middle East in America's image through force.

But on the other hand, angry as most there are with America for putting them into the chaos they now find themselves in, the "insurgency" is not a broad based extremely popular movement. It is very popular in some segments in Iraq. Those who made out well under Hussein generally back it. It also is supported by fundamentalist Middle East Islamists with a jihadist mind set. Those forces are by no means universally welcomed by the Iraq population either.

It's kind of like we are all now locked in the back seat of a cab with a bullet proof window separating us from the Cabbie. A forest fire is racing toward us and Bush is our driver and he is blitzo drunk and the way out is a curvy mountain road with no shoulders. Yuk. Iraq can easily dissolve into chaos tomorrow and not simply because Americans are there. You are right about it being a civil war. Our best bet is getting out of there as soon as possible after the anti insurgent Iraqi's have a fighting chance.

What Clark at least is achieving is discrediting Republican leadership by pointing out how their wrong choices led to this crisis. Repeating that will help us hopefully regain Congress in 2006. There are things that a wise President could do right now to improve the situation in Iraq, and Clark cites some. Unfortunately do not have a wise President, either thet or Bush's other agendas stand in the way of doing what is right for America.

[enough already]

109. You people are arguing over nuance and semantics

Bottom line: WE CAN'T FUCKING WIN AND NEED TO GET THE FUCK OUT NOW! First Democrat with the balls to say that publicly has my full support.

[mike_c]

61. this is wrong and has been debunked many times....

Google is your friend. Saddam Hussein agreed to allow the U.N. inspectors back in BEFORE the IWR vote (they didn't actually return for a couple of months, however). Scott Ritter had already publically admitted that Hussein's WMD programs were dismantled by the U.N., and Saddam din fact complied with the U.N disarmament mandate by the mid-1990s. The WMDs were a myth. After the mid 1990s the U.S. used the inspections teams for espionage and provocation. Saddam had no weapons programs to hide and he consistently said so.

The U.S. is reponsible for the quagmire in Iraq-- not Saddam Hussein.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I did see Clark. He did NOT say the same thing

Clark said Iraq was not related to 9/11. Clark said Bush made the wrong choices getting us into Iraq, and he was very specific about that. He said Bush is not giving the American public the information they need to be able to judge how well the efforts in Iraq are going, and he was quite specific about that. Clark said that by going into Iraq we provided Al Quada with recruitment incentives because they can now say that the U.S. invaded and are occupying an Arab nation. Clark mentioned reports of some terrorists now leaving Iraq and moving into Europe, possibly to stage anti Western actions, which blows Bush's latest rational.

Did Biden or Bayh say any of that? Who else is saying stuff like that to FOX viewers?

[JHBowden]

30. Clark did say we need to stay the course.

I saw it too. It was the common democratic mush about how the war is the suckiest thing ever that deserves our 100% support.

Does anyone else see the dissonance here?

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Here is my take

In essence I think Clark is saying: it will now take really skillful leadership and a lot of blood and money, either up front now, or later with interest, to get us out of the mess Bush got us into, but we have to get out of this mess, and unfortunately Bush isn't a skilled leader.

There is dissonance because Bush road us into an ambush in some box canyon then blew up the only bridge that crosses the chasm at the entry. The exit routes now are all dangerous and painful. Clark ticks off some things an intelligent leader would do in the region to improve the situation, but unfortunately we have Bush.

[HootieMcBoob]

125. That's it!

That is the essence of what Clark was saying. He's doing a great job on Fox. I'm thankful for him being there and possibly talking some sense into some people out there. I'm also thankful for these clips because a long time ago I completely removed Fox News from my television channel list.

[ClarkUSA]

41. Transcript link, please? n/t

[still_one]

42. then we are doomed to failure, and more American deaths

you cannot win a civil war

[ClarkUSA]

44. Clark's idea of winning is not the GOP's idea of winning

Please read here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1892961&mesg_id=1892961

[still_one]

48. there was no insurgency before we went into Iraq

I've been through the Viet Nam experience, which was also based on a lie, and this is worse than Viet Nam

The seeds of hate have been planted by the bush crime family that may possibly last for generations

[ClarkUSA]

51. Wes Clark understands this, believe me

Please read the thread link I gave you - and I am as sick at heart as you.

Hang in there.

[still_one]

58. I am not trashing Clark

I think it is out of Clark's and our control

The republican neocons, and the DLC will continue to make the wrong decisions

It is too bad that Clark was not our nominee, but it is too late for that now

[ClarkUSA]

69. I know you aren't...sorry if I didn't express myself properly!

I agree with you about everything you just said, but Democrats can't stop trying to offer a better way of doing things so that voters can choose well in 2006 and beyond.

By the way, that is an adorable pug.

[Texas_Kat]

80. I think you are correct.

I could see it at the end of the interview. He spoke about Bush's dilemma. How can you find a balance between being successful (at this point, it means preventing a disaster or in plain English, averting a civil war exported all over the Middle East) and and at the same time, reducing the effect of Iraq as a terror training ground.

Frankly, I think Wes would break his heart trying to repair all the damage Bush has done.

Show me that Joe "oh, yeah, I'll diss the war if it means a couple o' guest shots on MTP" Biden and Evan "I'm still the President of the DLC--a pragmatic Democrat" Bayh has better principles.

Show me that there is some there.... there.

[Kahuna]

130. You are correct. The bushies want choas. They don't want to leave...

If they really wanted to leave all they would have to do is get the Iraqi security forces trained so that they can take over the security of their own country. I also believe that we should not leave until Iraq is secured. Being that we are the ones who made them insecure. That's what Clark, Kerry and even Biden are saying. How can we righteously and in good conscience leave them now while they are totally defenseless?

[illbill]

93. My question exactly.

Biden > *


Biden has the experience and know-how to lead the country. Although the war was unjust, we would be facing much larger problems if we didn't invade.

[FrenchieCat]

98. All I can say to your comment is....

:wtf:

[illbill]

101. Sorry frenchie.

:)

[Crunchy Frog]

102. All I can say about it is...

[Capn Sunshine]

151. Biden signed a PNAC letter

automatic DQ.

Wes Clark might have military experience, but he's no PNAC cheerleader. Quite the opposite.

Both Dean and he are WRONG about attempting to stay and do things right IMO, but it's certainly a valid POV. But the fact remains, every day we remain there, more people die.

I believe I still have some "GET OUT NOW" bumper stickers left over from 1970. I hope I don't need them.

[still_one]

5. they want to sacrifice your children for an immoral war in iraq

I don't gave a damn if biden's son is in the armed forces, if his kid gets sent to a war based on a lie that is his problem, after all he voted for the war

go to hell Senator Biden, and bayh, sacrifice your children NOT mine

[joemurphy]

7. Bayh's worthless

Bayh doesn't have a moral bone in his body. He was part of Bush's Rose Garden party of Democrats supporting war from the outset -- like Gephart. He was my State's governor for around 8 years and all he ever did was balance budgets. He's a hard line fiscal conservative. He's also a hard line social conservative. He's ambitious and would say or do only what is politically expedient. Throw in the fact that he's always as wooden as he looked tonight and you'll understand why he'd be an absolutely horrendous Presidential choice for the Democrats.

[David Dunham]

32. Gephradt would have helped Kerry a lot more than Edwards

Edwards once picked as the VP candidate stunk.

[roguevalley]

8. neither of them had a shot at the fourteen votes in my family. ever.

[David Dunham]

14. Guys, the Dem 2008 nominee will have very likely voted for Iraq war

The reality is that the Dem nominee for president in 2008 will have voted for the Iraq war. It may be Hillary, Bayh, Biden, or Kerry. It possibly could be Mark Warner, who as VA governor supported the war. Feingold and Dennis K. will never be nominated.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. anyone of them at any time can say

I voted for the war because my president lied to me. I regret my trust in my president and my vote was a mistake.

[rfkrfk]

112. everyone over the age of 10, knew bush was full of crap

anyone of them who,in the future, says that, will just look
more cheap than they do now

[Warren Stupidity]

140. actually I don't buy the andrea mitchell spin

I think lots of people believed Bush and the Liars, including lots of senators and Representatives. Regardless, even assuming your position here, the DSM provides the cover to make a face-saving break from the Bush disaster.

[autorank]

22. Why? Is this the "same old same old" notion. I hope you're wrong...

...maybe you do too. Warner, D,VA is a fine Governor but he won't catch on nationally. The rest of them are so tired and old-school. We may very well be in a position in a year where support for this war at the outset is viewed as a deal-killer for any candidate. Think about it, things will get much worse, I'm sorry to say. Did you hear Bush say he'd send more troops if his Generals asked him too. He's already blaming others for the carnage he causes, for failing to heed Gen Shinseki's advice. The 'likely nominees' you list are all followers on this issue.

We'll see.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Explain to me why Feingold can't be nominated?

He can't be perceived as any more "liberal" than Kerry and actually he's to the right of him on certain issues. Besides, Feingold talks like a person. Kerry talks like a Senator.

As for Dennis Kucinich, he needs to figure out how to win a major statewide race in Ohio. Then people would start looking at him as a serious presidential candidate.

[Alpharetta]

120. Nope. I hope not.

I hope our party doesn't revert to their spineless ways.

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. As far as I'm concerned, they were never IN

..but then neither are any of those DLC pink tutu appeasement cowards.

[cestpaspossible]

12. Their views

on Iraq and their own viabilities as Presidential candidates are equally realistic.

[David Dunham]

16. One of them or someone else who supported the war will be our nominee

Bet on it. Feingold and Dennis K. have no chance.

[Mountainman]

17. The reason they voted for the war, Kerry included, was to cover their

asses in the following elections. It was a cowardly vote and many of those Dems who voted for the war lost anyway and some that voted against are still in congress.

There is no honor unless they say, I voted for the war and I was wrong to do so. Everyone and I mean everyone here knew the war was an illegal invasion of a sovereign country. That the evidence for going to war was trumped up and don't tell me the Dem congress critters didn't know it also.

I was not proud of the way Kerry played it during the election. He said he voted to give the President the power to go to war but it was the President's fault we are there and it is the President who is running the war poorly. If you voted to give him the power you voted for what he did in my book.

[rpannier]

18. Whether you like it or not

The nominee from both major parties will be opposed to pulling out of Iraq early. You can say you will vote for a third party candidate and that's your option.
But chances are the pukes will nominate another scrub clone and we'll get 4 more years of scrub-like policies.

[David Dunham]

21. I think a Dem will win in 2008 because Repubs won't put up McCain/Hagel

[Pithy Cherub]

24. B & B believe the can "stay the course" and march

towards the nomination based on the alignment they can show with Bush. :eyes: Biden's feeling are probably a bit singed:cry: after all the email against him the last few weeks about Gov. Dean. These B & B shall be able to collect some money from corporations, but the real people will be plunking down votes, time and effort elsewhere.

[David Dunham]

29. Al Gore is the only potential 2008 nominee who opposed Iraq War

Al Gore is the only anti-Iraq War Dem with a realistic chance at the nomination if he runs. Feingold and Dennis K. won't get the fuinding or broad support needed.

[FrenchieCat]

35. I don't think that you've got it quite right.....

Al Gore is NOT the only anti-Iraq War Dem with a realistic chance at the nomination if he runs.

Please understand that this is no put down of Vice-President Al Gore.

I just think that there are others in the running (like Wes Clark)...that I won't be dismissing just cause my corporate media says I should.

[autorank]

60. Clark opposed the war strongly!!! Without question, with passion.

If he'd had a few more months to sharpen up, he'd have taken the sucker and won the nomination and presidency, end of story (I'm presuming he's smart enough to have discovered electoral fraud and focused a sharp light on it).

Gore opposed the war. Gore also gave a stunning speech which no one on this forum would disagree--the Georgetown speech on the new basis for the Democratic Party.

I admire and support both of them. Who knows what we'll see in 2008?
It certainly will be difficult to run having supported this disaster.

[mike_c]

74. but now he's calling for "winning" it...

...and he speaks about the "war on terror" just like all the others who've drank the kool-aid.

[autorank]

79. You're correct, I watched the video. He's in error on this I think but I

want to know what he means by "win."

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. Clark does not have the same goal as Bush, so succeeding differs

I wrote this on another thread, but it fits here also. There are overlaps in strategy toward somewhat similar but significantly different goals in that Clark does not believe we can pull out troops on a timeline, that is true. Anyway here is what I wrote about the difference between staying the course and achieving a goal, and I think the difference in goals does change the definition somewhat of succeeding:

Staying a course" is a way to reach a goal. I am not trying to be cute with semantics. I recognize that you said that Clark would do things differently, and I agree that he said a number of things like "we can not afford to fail". That does not equate with Staying Bush's course, which is why there is so much static in this discussion around this.

I can respect and understand that you disagree with Clark that a certain goal is achievable. But Clark is not even setting the same goal as Bush. Clark does not define the goal as a "Democratic Iraq", he defines it as preventing actual terrorists from establishing deep ties and permanent bases in Iraq - he calls for an Iraqi government with the confidence of it's people, he doesn't stipulate that as having to be Democratic.

And the means to achieve it that Clark advocates differ significantly from Bush. Clark is willing to work on achieving a regional understanding whereby States neighboring Iraq will cooperate more in not helping to undermine Iraq's new government. Bush is going in an opposite direction.

Anyway, even if Clark and Dean and Biden and Bayh and other Democrats all agree that we should not simply pull out all of our forces from Iraq immediately, or even establish a specific timeline for doing so, that does not mean that there are not significant differences between them regarding who I can support in 2008. There are honorable, profound disagreements as to what we sholuld do to get ourselvves out of the mess Bush put us in, but my disagreements with those who do not think that Bush put us into this mess are of several degree orders higher. Bayh still thinks the Iraq invasion was a good idea for example.

[autorank]

85. Wow...My wish is granted. Thank you for making sense out of this.

Seriously, this was helpful. I have a very favorable impression of Clark so I give him the benefit of the doubt until further clarification. I will take your word that this is his position and I like it. If it's not, please become a Clark adviser, he needs you!

Here's my favorite line: "he calls for an Iraqi government with the confidence of it's people, he doesn't stipulate that as having to be Democratic. " RIGHT. Remember Algeria in the 80's. Perfectly fine election and the Muslim extremists won a big victory. The military took over and that was it. Iraq needs a government that can govern. Who cares if they're elected, for our purposes. Just reasonable, humane, and competent.

[Pithy Cherub]

38. You are entitled to your opinion

and your analysis. Suffice it to say, I disagree. Your analysis is focused on current elected Dems...:toast:

Gore has done great things since the presidency was stolen from him. He is not my candidate for 2008 though.

[Gloria]

34. Clark on the same page about not quitting but.....

while Biden is reported to have said on one of his appearances that the commanders said they need more troops, Clark on FAUX said that he went with the judgment of the guys in the field and they were saying they had enough.

Not sure if Biden and Faux are referring to the same "leaders"....

[FrenchieCat]

43. Well you know Biden....

He's "been there, done that"! :sarcasm:

[Dinger]

52. Amen, Hallelujah, Tesitfy!! One More Thing . . . . .Two Actually . . . .

Kick & nominate!!
:kick:

[TankLV]

57. He was never IN in the first place - same with LAST TIME.

We don't need any more VICHY DEMS.

We want a candidate from the DEMOCRATIC WING of the Democratic Party!

I'm tired of repuke lite.

[LittleClarkie]

65. I dunno about Bayh, but Biden was never IN

the shmuck.

[Placebo]

72. So by your logic...

any and every Democrat who doesn't advocate an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is not part of the "reality-based community"?

Because that's going to be a mighty large long list, if that's the criteria.

[autorank]

78. Thanks for pointing that out. Why not have a comprehensive list?

I see this war as one of the biggest screw ups, on any level, in our history. The public is out pacing the pundits and the CM (corporate media) on this issue. 50% think it was a bad idea. They had to figure that out on their own with only the help of friends and family or the internet resources. That's 50% today and we have not had our equivalent of the Tet Offensive. You know that will happen. Just wait until the elections to ratify the new "constitution." They sat back and checked out our security the first time around and they'll be loaded. It makes me sick: lives lost, lives impacted forever from injuries, $200 billion and counting (what an opportunity cost), and the world hates us.

Now, given all that, add the following. Anyone with a brain knew that this war was bad news and based on lies. The 20 some odd Democrats who opposed the war are the ones we should look to. They not only knew it was bogus, they voted their patriotic duty rather than their narrow political needs and fears of public backlash; Hollings, Byrd, Graham (FL), Durbin, etc. These are the heroes.

By primary season, Iraq will be much, much worse. Now tell me, who will jump up and say, "I'm so damn proud of letting this idiot ruin our country by voting for Iraq, I just want to shout it from the rooftops."

I could be wrong but the war's barely reported, the pictures rarely shown, and the real enemy fireworks have yet to begin on a massive scale. I don't think this adventure was worth one one hang nail, let alone 1700 lives and 10 times that many injures, at least.

[Karmadillo]

83. The long list might go some distance in explaining why the Dems aren't

in the White House, are in the minority in both houses of Congress, and won't be able to keep a wingnut (albeit a "compassionate" one) from being appointed to the Supreme Court. A reality based strategy might possibly suggest not enthusiastically embracing the lunatic policies of one's opponents.

[autorank]

86. Damn, some great writing on this thread: "A reality based strategy might

... possibly suggest not enthusiastically embracing the lunatic policies of one's opponents." Dripping :sarcasm: I love it!

[zulchzulu]

84. Bayh is a bad name for a presidential candidate and Biden has no influence

Delaware has 3 electoral votes. It's the second smallest state in the country. Forget it, Joe.

Bayh is pronounced "Bye". There can't be an easier way for a Repug to do ads against him JUST for that reason.

Trade those cards in and try again.

[dchill]

87. Members of Congress who voted "for the war"

are the ones who bear the awful responsibility for the current bloodbath. They are the ones who abrogated their constitutional duty, and they are the ones who evidently believed the patent BushCo lies about WMD and the 9-11/Saddam connection.

Biden & Bayh are two of those Dubious Democrats whose credibility is damaged when they advocate "staying the course" with Joonyer. They are really just supporting their mistaken votes - not the troops, not the Iraqi people and NOT the American people.

Clark and Dean, however, can credibly make a case for a "successful conclusion" if that is what they believe, because they do not have a mistaken vote to "shore up" by whatever they advocate. It does not mean that they support Bush, it just means that they have the mental capacity to conceive a plan that would be successful.

Biden, Bayh, at al cannot be given that benefit. They already screwed up way too big for that. Too many credible voices were denying the BushCo claims before the war to think these members couldn't have had any idea that they were endorsing a pack of deliberate lies.

All that being said, any plan to "win the war" (successfully complete invasion and occupation) would be a real long shot, and the best course for our troops' sake might actually be to just pull out now. Our reputation's already shot anyway.

[leesa]

88. Yup. These people are garbage.

[CityDem]

91. How about Hillary

She voted for the Iraq war and is becoming more involved with the DLC. I believe she is the keynote speaker at their next major meeting. She must be out along with Biden and Bayh.

[snowbear]

92. How about no..

[autorank]

96. Let's get "the Donald" to tell her: "Hillary, You're Fired"

[fujiyama]

100. I'm not a big fan of Hillary

and have no intention of supporting her in the Dem Pres primaries if she decideds to run.

However, I'd rather have her in the senate over a repuke any day of the week.

[autorank]

115. Hillary over a Republican Senator in NY, you bet, we're together on that.

[ngGale]

99. I wouldn't vote for either one of them...

Biden does have a son in the military, Iraq. Maybe he's saying what he thinks he should say, but I can't handle it. There are other issues I have with him. Bayh, nope.

[wyldwolf]

103. So is Howard Dean... if he had even decided to run!

"Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." - Howard Dean speaking at an ACLU event.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&biw=1003&q=Now+that+we%27re+there%2C+we%27re+there+and+we+can%27t+get+out....+I+hope+the+President+is+incredibly+successful+with+his+policy+now.

[bushclipper]

104. Can we add Nancy Pelosi to the list?

In the Democratic Response to 2005 State of the Union Speech Feb 2, 2005, Pelosi said, "We all know that the US cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force. Neither should we slip out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving chaos."

[wyldwolf]

105. I believe we can...

I mean, Biden's quote (We can't cut and run before the job is done) isn't as eloquent as Pelosi's but the message is the same.

Of course, Howard - obviously agreeing with Biden and Pelosi - is as blunt as ever.

Wonder what other quotes we can dig up?

[autorank]

129. bushclyper and wyldwolf, I get your point but...

Here is where the logic falls down (and it's always dangerous to deal with logic in public discourse): WE are the reason for the violence. Staying there until it stops means we stay forever because the violence is directed at us and our allies. They hate us, they want us to leave. A rapid withdrawal with appropriate safe guards (and even threats) would end the violence against us and our proxies. Would there be civil war? I don't know but at least there wouldn't be war because we're there. The logical thing to do to stop the violence we're responsible for is leave.

I think that in today's environment, post Viet Nam, it is very dangerous to be seen as a supporter of a war that fails miserably.

We need to tell the truth: the war was a crime perpetrated based on a sham excuse; our presence is the direct cause of the violence; we need to leave promptly but responsibly to stop the violence.

[wyldwolf]

134. no one is denying your logic

I'm just rejecting calling one or two on the carpet for something while others seem to get a free pass.

Why not say "ANYONE who doesn't feel the way I feel about Iraq is OUT."

[CWebster]

106. Ain't like Clinton or Kerry are any better. nt

[salin]

107. Evan was still touting the "we will find WMDs" MONTHS after Kay

returned from heading inspection teams and said found none, found no traces, appears there never were any...

[Mad_Dem_X]

110. I'm embarrassed that Biden's my Senator

I was cringing during his response to *'s speech.

[Darkamber]

128. Why? I liked his response.

Yes...I know I'm outnumbered by those who dislike Biden here, but I do like his frank discussion of the problem. And he's been there and talked to the Generals on the ground.

We need people like Biden out there to wake up some of the Border GOP and get then to wake up and turn and look to and listen to the Democrats.

While I accept that I'm outnumbered here...Biden...along with people like Edwards and Ford can reach out to a broader base then just the left.

[LynneSin]

113. Oh get over yourself - have you thought about what we're going to do in 06

Seriously, I'm more worried about elections we have coming up in 2005 & 2006. Personally, I think anyone announcing their intent to run for president this early in the game is pretty much full of it.

[Zorbuddha]

118. Edwards will win in a cakewalk, relax.

Mark my words.

[autorank]

136. Well, as a matter of fact, yes I have...

Check this out

Damn, you're tough LynneSin, I was just complimenting your Coulter thingie on another thread and now you're telling me to get over myself.

I care about 2005 in VA and 2006 everywhere. My advice for anyone who also cares passionately is to check out the Electoins Results and Discussion thread and see how close we are to having things stolen again.

Do you know that 80% of the votes in 20004 are counted ty two extremist Republican voting machine firms (Diebold and ESS)? Now I care a lot about that.

:hi:

[ElectroPrincess]

114. With all the corruption with regard to Corporate Crones ...

Mix in the various "special ops" and imported "death squads" thanks to our Supreme Intelligence Leader, Negroponte, THE BEST we can do now is pull out our troops, like yesterday.

Yes, even Afghanistan. Remember what had a big part in Bankrupting the USSR, folks? Yes, "staying the course in Afghanistan."

Get Osama Bin Forgotten, since Porter Goss knows exactly where he is. Then pick up stakes and get the hell out of the entire Middle East.

I've lived over there for almost a year and have been a student of both the Arab and Persian Cultures. These folks are intensely tribal and loyal to their beliefs. No amount of pay-off and blood money will keep them from turning on their occupiers.

For those of you who STILL buy into "staying there" then, with all due respect, send YOUR children along with the Republicans to go Kill and Die, in The Oil Wars.

[Beam Me Up]

116. Haven't been there but I'm sure you are right.

1) The United States of America needs to begin impeachment against BUSH *

2) The United States of America needs to give a formal apology to the citizens of Iraq.

3) The United States of America, as a beginning act of reparations, should begin multinational, diplomatic efforts to bring about an end to violence in Iraq.

4) The United States of America should begin an orderly withdrawal of military from Iraq.

And this is just the beginning baby steps. The honor of the United States of America will forever be tainted until the citizens of this country once again regain control of their government and its various branches and work to limit the influence of corporations, especially those in the military, hydrocarbon and 'news media' industries.

[Zorbuddha]

119. Exactly, someone should ask Bush if he is willing to sacrfice his children

his wife.`his mom...to stay this course. Would the sacrifice be then still worth it?

He is a paper tiger, he deals easily and stubbornly with the suffering of others. Any honest man w3ould admit this is a colossal mistake, undertaken under false pretenses.

[autorank]

132. Great point...it's like this everywhere colonial expansion takes place.

The 'myth' of the good occipier is just that. Viet Nam has faded too far in memory, without lessons learned, so I guess we have to relive it again in the Middle East. My favorite part about the * - Rumsfeld, PNAC reverie is the notion of 12-13 "permanent bases." Are they dreaming, that's permanent occupation.

[Zorbuddha]

117. You are spot on, autorank

once again

[autorank]

133. Zorbuddha, thanks...if I make enough posts, I'll be right occasionally.

:hi:

[quiet.american]

121. Bayh refers to Iraq war lie as a "very noble and idealistic undertaking."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8575-2004May7?language=printer

He said this in 2004 -- enough time had passed for him to be able to get a clue.


Either he's amazingly dumb, amazingly gullible or amazingly blind -- none of which is needed in a president.

[Pachamama]

122. I believe the only person who will become the next Prez, Dem or Repub, has

to openly challenge Bush on this war and the lies it was based on and advocate pulling out on a timetable with involving NATO and/or UN forces to take over and to assist the Iraqis.

Anyone, Dem or GOP who keeps trying to straddle the wall and sounding either like Kerry or waffling will have no chance, not a chance at all.

[BamaBecky]

123. Good News! A breath of fresh air!.......n/t

[realFedUp]

131. Bayh Bi

:-)

[woodleydem]

137. Biden is right. Pulling out now would be disastrous for the Iraqi

people, and throw the country into civil war. We broke it, and we have to fix it. The premises on which Bush based the war are false, and Bush and his cronies basically duped an entire nation so they can test their world theories. But we have to finish the job, but not necessarily the way Bush is doing it. Read the transcipt of the speech Biden gave to Brookings: he lays out a clear plan to train Iraqi troops, rebuild infrastructure, spur economic growth, and ease the transition to the new government. His critique of the war and his solutions have won him praise from experts all across the political spectrum. And he doesn't just shoot heated rhetoric all day. He has been to Iraq several times and spoken with the generals on the ground. He clearly is the most competent Democrat right now when it comes to foreign policy.

BTW, nobody has been more critical of the way this war has been handled than Biden. But his speeches on Iraq offer substantive solutions and advocate a radically different strategy than the inane "stay the course" nonsense that Bush offers. (On a sidenote, Wesley Clark also doesn't favor unilateral pullout either.)

[AndyTiedye]

141. We CAN'T Fix It

Even if we sent in a million troops, we can't fix Iraq.

Just Get Out Now!

[autorank]

142. We can't fix it because our being there is the problem...

I'm so fucking angry at * and the idiots (all of them, the supporters & the enablers) who let this happen.

How many new terrorists have we created? How many attacks have we guaranteed because of the lunacy--torture, death and destruction?

Thanks for nothing Biden, Bayh, Clinton, etc. the enablers; and Bush, Rumsfield, McCain, etc.--those directly to blame.

[woodleydem]

144. The discussion of "being there" is moot. We are there!!! But to pull out

unilaterally would be disaster. The anger of us going there on completely false pretenses is justified. I am as pissed about Bush taking it upon himself and going to war on lies as any other Democrat. But leaving immediately is, unfortunately, not an option. The country is an absolute mess right now, and to leave Iraqi civilians high and dry and let Iraq become a land of thugs (even more than it is right now) would be a travesty to the Iraqi civilians. We broke it, we have to fix it. It sucks, and I hate the hell out of Bush for putting us in this position, but this is hand that we dealt to ourselves. If you think that the world hates us now, wait until we pull out of Iraq. It will be the ideal example of American arrogance. You can blame Bush, Rumsfeld and Co. all you want, and I will agree with you every step of the way. But the fact remains: we broke it, we have to fix it. And something tells me that this won't be fixed by 2008. And whoever most clearly articulates a concise vision of what we need to do get the Iraqi government standing on its own, he (or she) will get my vote. But a unilateral pullout without any sort of idea of what happens next in Iraq isn't going to cut it, and it won't cut it with the majority of Americans.

[demwing]

149. Thats wrong.

Leaving will not resolve the problem, leaving will complicate the problem.

I'm not saying that we didn't cause this, but just turning and running will only make it worse, decrease our standing in the world, and put more lives at risk.

We need to leave, but not so that it creates a vacuum.

Sometimes, doing the opposite of "wrong" is also wrong. Wrong and right are rarely diametric opposites, but are often similar positions separated by the smallest of measurements.

[mvd]

150. Well, I couldn't disagree more,

except for the "we caused this part." Sometimes we have to recognize when we ARE the problem. With all our troops, we haven't stabilized the country. I've seen nothing to believe it will get more stable. As I said elsewhere, maybe leave some soldiers to help with protection of schools, hospitals, etc - but as an occupying force, we're just breeding more resentment. Right now, we are not a positive force there.

[illbill]

163. agreed

[mvd]

146. They would certainly not be my first choices

That bankrupcy bill vote would eliminate Biden from consideration in regards to who I vote for in the primary. It's a big issue for me. Bankrupcy has struck people in my family twice (grandfather and parents.) I expect, in the primary, to vote for someone liberal again - I voted for Kucinich in the last primary. My philosophy is they should be able to show what they can do.

[snickersnee]

152. i would like to say something

i've lurked a lot of these "critical" threads, where poster X criticizes politician Y for policy Z. i find it disturbing that, without exception, they devolve into retorts along the lines of "those are repuke talking points", or "why don't you ALSO criticize everyone else who said much the same thing". the implication being that, because you said something some wingnut agreed with, you must be "one of them". or that, by not listing every single person you disagree with, or to whom your critique might apply, you are a hypocrite.

it reminds me of when repubs defend bush and iraq. criticize abu ghraib, and they retort "why don't you criticize al quaeda for chopping off heads, or saddam for gassing the kurds". well, for one reason, this is just assumed - we don't EXPECT the same of them. for another reason, what they do is irrelevant. just because the other guy is an inhuman monster doesn't make it ok for you to be a little less of one.

if kerry, or clark, or dean etc. take a position or make a statement, they should be accountable. if i wish to debate and dispute their actions, does this automatically make me a koolaid-stained, tinfoil-coiffed armchair 5th columnist? does it really make a difference if other politicians said or did the same things, and i failed to include them in my encyclopeadic criticism?

i'd rather we be able to discuss such issues on the merits; how about you?

[wyldwolf]

156. Here's my take on one of your points

by not listing every single person you disagree with, or to whom your critique might apply, you are a hypocrite... does it really make a difference if other politicians said or did the same things, and i failed to include them in my encyclopeadic criticism?

Yes, it does.

Often, the person who is criticizing politician "A" for doing something is a big supporter of politician "B" who has done the same thing. No one (not many, anyway) are denying the criticism is valid but it should be noted if fingers are to be pointed that they're pointed at everyone - even the critic's sacred cow.

[snickersnee]

157. thanks for a rational response

i certainly see your point. but realize that for every partisan muckraker on the boards, there are one or two honest seekers as well. sure, if someone accuses others of doing something his own candidate is equally guilty of, by all means point that out.

but i also see this happen far too often in circumstances where this is clearly not the case. the reason i bring this up is that, many times i've read a critique or observation, agreed with all or part of it, and then immediately seen that person accused of being a useful idiot of flaming hypocrite. so i figure that's what i would have been called too, had i voiced my opinion.

pointing out inconsistency (real or imagined) is fine, but's it not really ever a full answer. "kerry eats babies"... "yeah, so does dean, deanboy".... bleah. save if for recess.

but perhaps i'm only a troll...

[wyldwolf]

159. perhaps

but i also see this happen far too often in circumstances where this is clearly not the case.

In my experience, it usually is the case but candidate "B" supporter will then spin and twist and claim some special insight into the mind of candidate "B" by revealing what he/she reallymeant or will claim until their last breath that candidate "B" was "taken out of context."

[snickersnee]

165. k, i don't really know what to say

it seems both of your responses have been along the lines of "but they ARE really just baiting and spinning". i don't know how often this is true, maybe this is usually the case. what i'm trying to convey is the sense of chill a relative newbie like myself feels when they see someone ask a question or raise a concern they agree with, and then see that poster get superficially ad hominemed to death.

i also think, even if it's true, that it's irrelevant. if a dean-booster points out something kerry did, kerry-boosters should either defend the action on the merits, or admit that they can't. (here is where the greek chorus would intone: "what if dean did the same thing"?) i don't think anyone does their "side" a favour by dumbing the debate down to the level of "so's yer mama".

you disagree?