Fineman: Blast will reverberate in campaign (calls it tipping point)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/955004.asp?0cv=CB20

Mark the day: The blast that rocked the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was more than a massacre of innocents. It also was a tipping point in American politics.

NOW WE KNOW for certain that the 2004 election will be, virtually to the exclusion of anything else, a referendum on President Bush’s decision to go Iraq — and a debate over whether doing so made us safer, or put us in greater danger, in the war on global terrorism.

For the White House, this is a case of “be careful what you wish for.” As was made clear on the deck of the Abe Lincoln, they want to run Bush for re-election as the Man in the Flight Suit. But now it’s not clear whether that garment was a coronation robe or a straitjacket.

--snip--

Another sure thing: Wes Clark is in. The retired general and Rhodes Scholar increasingly looks like a seer for his pre-war comments. Go back and read what he had to say in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. (Any of the Clark for President grassroots Web sites will do.) Clark, who was leaning toward running in any case, almost certainly can’t now resist the chance to say “I told you so.” And, more than any other possible Democratic candidate (with the exception of John Kerry), Clark could brush off the soft-on-defense rhetoric that GOP oppo experts are preparing to throw at the Democratic Party.

[MidwestTransplant]

1. I started to see this a month or so ago...

While the economy may improve by the election, partially neurtalizing it as the main issue as conventional wisdom would have had it, Iraq will become the main issue.

[Maple]

2. Don't understand

why Fineman is so anti-UN though...this is precisely the mess the UN warned about getting into. So they were right, and Bush was wrong.

[jfxgillis]

3. Fineman is a dolt

The "secret plan" was 1968, a critical distinction.

And who says the UN let Saddam "run rampant"? Using the UN, Clinton had Saddam well contained.

And who says the UN is "politically discredited"? Fineman does. The jerks around Bush do. But not a majority of the American people.

[NickDanger]

6. Clark can win

nobody else can

[Larkspur]

7. Dean is way ahead of Clark in organization and grassroots support

It's Dean's organizing ability, his RESPECT for all factions of the Democratic base, and his straight talking that will win him the nomination. Clark with hurt the Establishment Dems, like Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and even Graham. Gephardt may still do well because of his union ties. But Dean is bringing in NEW people to the politicial process and energizing alienated Democrats to have new hope, so he won't suffer as much a hit as the Establishment Dems.

Also, Clark has not shown any inclination to address factions of the Democratic base, like N.O.W., NAACP, unions, and potentional Democratic allies, like Arab Americans. Dean has made or is about to make the trek to all these group's conventions or forums to discuss his positions.

[berry]

4. All well and good--

but he ends by calling the UN "discredited" and Bush* "leader of the free world"--without a trace of irony. So I have to suppose that he actually believes the swill the WH feeds the press.

Someday, I'm going to have to start a thread asking people to explain to me HOW the UN has been made "irrelevant" and "discredited". I know BushCo* say so. But a lot of people seem to believe it (not here of course). I don't even know on what they base these judgements (or maybe they don't even try to justify or explain, when simple labelling works so well in the media....)

[JackSwift]

5. Fineman is a blithering idiot who, like a broken clock

is correct twice a day. One of the three things election 2004 will be about is War, Economy and leadership.

[KoKo]

8. "Slimeman" can't resist a "below the belt" puke remark about Democrats!

check out this last paragraph with his comments about us. He is disgusting....one of Tweety's pals who "blows with the wind changes."

" But the Democrats will have to answer questions of
their own. Are they for putting more American troops in?
(John McCain, the Democrats’ de facto secretary of
defense, is for doing so.) Do they want a bigger role for the
brave but still politically discredited U.N.? Do they want
simply to pull out of Iraq altogether? And, if not, why aren’t
they backing the president instead of taking political
potshots at the beleaguered leader of the free world?
As I said, it’s going to be a long — and nasty —
election. But the issues couldn’t be more profound. We
can’t live in a world of truck bombs, and the question is how
to ensure we don’t have to. "

[KoKo]

9. Notice he says "McCain is Democrats de facto Secretary of Defense!"

Unbelievable, toady!!! :grr: