Why Saddam’s capture further confirms that Clark should be our nominee.

[boxster]

Let’s not kid ourselves – the capture of Saddam Hussein is a boost for Bush and will likely bring more voters into the pro-War, pro-Bush column. According to most polls (including the pre-capture and first post-capture polls), more than half of the American public is already there.

Many people believe that the Democratic nomination is a race that will come down to Clark and Dean. As has been pointed out by supporters of both candidates, Clark and Dean share similar views on many traditional Democratic issues.

That being the case, it only makes sense to add to our inherent strength on domestic issues by countering what will very likely become THE issues in the 2004 campaign. There is little doubt that the Bush Administration and the media will make every effort to focus this election on national security, Iraq, the war on "terra", and little else, because Bush has little else to run on.

If they are effective (as they were in 2002), we need a candidate who can beat Bush at his own game on these issues, while still representing Democrats on Democratic issues – education, health care, economy, social security, good jobs, and so on.

That candidate is Wesley Clark.

Clark's stances on the issues are pretty liberal, arguably more liberal than Dean's views. Perhaps more important, however, is the fact that he easily trumps Bush’s fabricated Commander-in-Chief façade. Bush’s stuffed flight suit can’t complete with Clark’s four stars, his intelligence, and his military experience.

Corny, yes, but true. Bush’s false military bravado is rendered impotent in a campaign against Wesley Clark.

I do not see how the same can be said of Dean. Dean is the front-runner, but is he the best candidate if the media and the administration successfully make this a one-issue race, as it was in 2002?

Dean supporters, please feel free to convince me otherwise, but I believe the answer to that question is an unqualified "no". I cannot fathom how we can be better off with Dean as the nominee if the primary issues of the campaign are issues like national security and the war on terror.

And do not be fooled - the Bush Administration and the media will do all they can to ensure that those are THE issues of the campaign. Doing otherwise is a losing strategy for Bush.

Perhaps the best of both worlds is a Clark/Dean ticket. Clark's social liberalism and ability to effectively blunt Bush's strengths combined with Dean's extraordinary campaign reach and fundraising ability make for a very formidable team.

[RPG-7]

1. it will not

Saddam's capture is going to mean about as much as his statue coming down does now.

No one is going to care in 04 if we are still stuck there.

[joefree1]

2. If Bush caught Saddam what do we need Clark for

If it's all about war and terror then we've probably got Bush for another four years.

But then an Iraq victory didn't help the first Bush so I don't see this "war" helping Bush junior either.

"It's the JOBS stupid" should be our rallying cry.


Dean Rocks The House of Blues
7:00 pm ~ 10:00 pm
House of Blues
8430 Sunset Blvd.
West Hollywood, CA 90069
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=evite_la1215
If you're going check in here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=4536
(I'll post pics on Tuesday)

Edit: this is not a Clark bashing post. I really like him and would love to see Clark and Dean work together no matter who the nominee is.

[boxster]

6. That seems a little defeatist coming from a Dean supporter.

If it's all about war and terror then we've probably got Bush for another four years.

In a way, you just made my entire point for me.

You're basically saying that if Bush and the media successfully make this election primarily about the war on terror (as they did in 2002), we have no chance in the election.

I disagree. With Dean as the nominee, you're probably right. But, I think that Clark (or Kerry, for that matter) can effectively counter that argument and make Bush look ineffectual on those issues. Only then can we shift the focus to the issues that should be on the table.

[LuminousX]

3. I disagree

The analysis is faulty. Yes, Bush gets a bump, but the 'rising expectation' is this is a sort of V-J Day and the troops will be coming home. If that is the case, the focus will turn domestic where the General is weakest, especially against Kerry, Edwards, and Dean. If the troops don't come home, the bitterness people will feel will propel the Democratic nominee into the White House.

Clark's fate seems unchanged in recent events. Kerry's got slightly better and Dean's got slightly worse.

[boxster]

5. I think you missed the point.

My point is that Clark (and Kerry, for that matter, for the same reasons) was already a much better candidate than Dean vs. Bush because this election will undoubtedly be pushed toward issues of national security in the media and by the administration. The capture of Saddam only furthers this belief.

As I quite clearly stated in my posting, many people think this will come down to Clark vs. Dean. My comments were in that frame of reference. I agree that Kerry would be an excellent choice for the same reasons, but it remains to be seen if Kerry will be in a position to catch Dean in the primaries.

I disagree that Clark is weakest on domestic issues. He may not have as much public experience, but he has a lot of experience within the military in dealing with these issues, plus the plans he has put forth are very intelligent and detailed.

[Qutzupalotl]

7. also

After Iraq operations die down, we will be able to shift troops to Afghanistan, where they're badly needed to restore stability. Maybe now we can track down Osama. We've still got our hands full in Iraq, though, and we're obligated to rebuild after the mess we made (same as Afghanistan). But the war or Terra will continue. My point is, we may not see a big shift in troops coming home; certainly the ones who've been there on extended duty need to come home, but I see a lot of cleaning up in our future. This whole Iraq fiasco allowed al Qaeda to regroup.

I agree with boxster's post. Clark will get a second look from many voters. Dean has become identified with the antiwar movement. I feel Clark can criticize Bush more credibly on foreign policy, which will still be important. We'll still be in Afghanistan and probably Iraq in November.

And of course, Saddam being captured alive and headed for a public trial could mean a lot of embarrassing revelations for Bush. Suppose he could prove publicly that he had no WMD program after 1998? That would show Bush to be a liar, and his foreign policy foolhardy.

[boxster]

8. No WMD program.

We just have to hope that Bush isn't sitting on intelligence that proves that Saddam transferred his WMD into Syria or elsewhere. Releasing that around September or so would be very difficult to counter. Capturing Bin Laden around the same time would likely have the same effect.

Though, it seems pretty obvious that the administration was working with faulty intelligence where Saddam is concerned (which seems unthinkable in our world of spy satellites and on-the-ground intel) or just flatly ignored all of the signs that Saddam wasn't a threat.

[pocoloco]

4. You are right on boxter!

You state the obvious despite the flack you will receive for this post. It just takes a little while for the cream to reach the top!

[boxster]

9. Heck, I didn't even get much flack. I would have settled for flack!

:shrug:

Completely immodest after-work kick!

[boxster]

10. Shameless kick.

*sigh*

[Ksec]

11. Good post Boxer

and I agree. If Dean is our nominee Im not gonna be happy( we lose for sure now.) I dont like it but America wont elect a guy who doesnt appear strong on issues(I know he is)

Dean is a good guy (but not the right guy) I respect that he wasnt for this immoral and unnecessary war. (but Americans are mostly sheeple so..)

[DeanIsAPitbull]

12. I don't think it really matters who our candidate is, honestly.

Dean could at least make it fun and interesting.

[boxster]

23. Hehe.

That is very true - it would certainly be interesting watching Dean debate Bush. I'd like to see Bush debate ANY of our candidates!

[Fahrenheit911]

13. I like the idea of Clark/Dean

it sounds like a winning formula..
Dean can be pres some latter stage..but lets win

[drfemoe]

14. why do I feel

that Clark's campaign tactics are a lot like the ones our military uses to obtain "confessions" from enemy combatants?

[Toucano]

17. What do you mean?

Exactly which campaign tactics are you talking about?

[edzontar]

37. One thing I have noted lately...

Is the use of "Dirty Tricks" tactics by SOME Clark supporters on this board.

I refer, of course, to the "Stop Dean Movement" thread from yesterday, which was posted by a Clark supporter.

These tactics have driven me away from Clark in the past 24 hours--he used to be my second choice...but I am not sure now.

Why?

Because so many of his supporters here seem to be willing to damage the Party and disrupt DU to advance their candidate.

[K-W]

15. Saddam doesnt give Bush much for the election,

it is too far away, BUT what it does do is remind us that the situation in Iraq can, and very well might improve. If this is the case, and the current administration can put in a government they can sell as democratic, and cut down american deaths before the election, we will run into a big problem basing our election on Iraq and Dean's strong stance now may hurt him if he is our candidate.

I think we need to realize that, though we all know how bad the Iraq, PNAC, etc stuff is, most americans dont. If soldiers stop dying and things seem to be improving, Americans are not going to be against Bush's Iraq policy in the numbers it would take to make Dean's current attitudes well suited to win the general election.

I dont know that Clark is the best candidate either. Potentially this could mean refocusing our debate on domestic issues. Dean's problem is that he's obscurred himself by being associated so strongly with one thing.

[frogfromthenorth2]

16. My fisrt post ever about...

the nominees.... But I have to say that from where I stand, Clark made an ass of himself when he started talking about the war in Iraq. I cannot believe people still think that he has any credibility left. Is that what you call a "flipflopper" on important issues? There...I said it....

[opihimoimoi]

18. Dean represents a "Gear Change", NEW School.

He is the only one to ENERGIZE, he is the passionate one.

Dean can win with higher odds. He is the Dems best shot.

Killing him off with attacks will hurt the Dem Party later on.

All the Kings Men...................cannot put Dean back together again.

The Dems don't get it. Instead of working together, we divide our selves and attempt to rationalize it.

Deans message is beautiful, much needed, and should be taken for what it is..... a call to Humanity. The Old School guys are tearing him down. In doing so, they regulate us to a status quo.

[boxster]

22. If we're going to condemn candidates for "flip-flopping", we'll

need to condemn them all.

None of the candidates has run a perfect campaign, and each of them has made what could very easily be considered "flip-flops".

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085967/

So, claiming that Clark's credibility is destroyed because of his imprecise answers on the war in Iraq is a little misguided. The other candidates have certainly had their share of imprecise answers.

Mistakes happen - it's how those mistakes are corrected or clarified that becomes important in the long run.

[frogfromthenorth2]

27. There was nothing "imprecise" about his

answer about the war in Iraq. At the moment he said that he lost any chances of becoming the DEM nominee... IMO

[boxster]

30. I certainly hope that you aren't supporting Dean, then....

because he flip-flopped in his statements about Iraq, as well.

"Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index1.html

Dean quite clearly advocated the use of unilateral force after a 30 to 60-day waiting period and quite clearly changed his position more recently. He and many of his supporters seem to have forgotten this statement.

Please be careful how you determine your criteria for a presidential candidate, as you're likely to be disappointed if you set perfection as a goal.

[JVS]

19. I'd like to make a point here

The capture of Hussein does not make people who were against the war look foolish. They can still argue that there was not adequate reason to go to war in the first place.

The group which is harmed by the capture are those who argue that the war is being handled poorly or mismanaged. Hussein's capture allows the Bush administration to claim that they know what they are doing over there and are having success.

[boxster]

28. I agree.

The capture of Hussein does not make people who were against the war look foolish.

And, I certainly don't believe that. I was against the war from day one, and I certainly haven't changed my view. I apologize if my posting gave you the opposite impression.

My point was that roughly half of the American public does approve of Bush and does think the war was "worth it". If this half approves of Bush in large part because of the war on terror (as many seem to), we need a candidate that can blunt this by default.

For my money, that means Kerry or Clark, because they bring instant credibility when it comes to countering Bush with a real strategy for getting us out of Iraq. I just happen to think Clark is a better candidate in a head-to-head with Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

20. The capture of Saddam doesn't change any of the facts about the war

and the logic you use is more appropriate for a candidate like John Kerry, who voted for the war, than for Clark, who opposed it.

If you really want a liberal candidate, that candidate would be Dennis Kucinich--the only candidate that has been 100% correct on all issues.

[conservdem]

21. You are probably right about Clark being better candidate than Dean.

[NicoleM]

24. Do you have a link

for the poll data you cite? Because here is what Gallup found right after the capture:

Planning to vote to re-elect even before capture 45%
Not planning to vote to re-elect, more likely now 3%
Not planning to vote to re-elect, mind not changed 43%

These types of "instant trends" do not necessarily predict the actual, long-term impact of an event, particularly because many of those interviewed had hardly had time to ponder the capture, much less its impact on their vote 11 months from now. But the fact that there is no immediate self-awareness of a change in position on Bush suggests the need for caution in assumptions that Sunday's events are going to recast the election in any substantial way.

[boxster]

26. 48% is very likely within the margin of error of my statement

the capture of Saddam Hussein is a boost for Bush and will likely bring more voters into the pro-War, pro-Bush column. According to most polls (including the pre-capture and first post-capture polls), more than half of the American public is already there.

Your poll shows that 48% were going to vote for Bush or are now leaning that direction. That's certainly within the MOE of my statement of "more than half".

Your same poll shows that 62% of respondents believe that the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over. That certainly fits my statement.

MSNBC has Bush at 58% this morning. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3721220/

Perhaps more importantly, it has Bush ahead of Dean 52-31. 52% certainly meets my claim of "more than half".

Look, I'm not any happier about this data than you are, but my point is that roughly half of the American public approves of Bush and approves of the war in Iraq or at least thinks it was "worth it".

If they approve of Bush because they believe he's strong on defense, national security, the war on terror, etc., we need a candidate that blunts those strengths by default.

In my opinion, that's either Kerry or Clark, and I personally believe Clark is the better choice head-to-head with Bush.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Check Out More Data

Zogby, ARI, and Harris all have Bush at 46% or less as of the week ending Dec. 5, with MOE of +/-3%. So, three major polling firms have him at less than half the people approving.

In addition, all three of these polls have him at re-elect numbers of under 43%.

So, you might want to rethink the conviction of your conclusions.
The Professor

[boxster]

32. Please re-read my posting.

Did I say ANYTHING about re-elect numbers? No. I said that more than half of the American public was "pro-Bush".

In fact, you quoted the wrong numbers on Zogby if you were looking for data on "less than half the people approving".

Zogby: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=765
Bush approval: 49/51, with MOE of 3.2%

Sounds like half to me.

Head-to-head polls with Dean:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
Bush 49-42 over Dean, 4% MOE

Again, sounds pretty close to half, potentially more with the MOE.

MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3721220
52-31 Bush/Dean

If 52% of people say that they will vote for Bush over our front-runner, that certainly sounds like "more than half" to me. In nearly any poll you can find, I guarantee that Bush's personal approval ratings are "more than half" considering the MOEs.

You suggested that I reconsider my convictions. Perhaps you should do the same. The fact that our front-runner is 21 points behind Bush in a very recent poll lends much more credence to my convictions and statements than it does to yours.

[ProfessorGAC]

36. I Have No Such Convictions

You're putting words into my head. I have no such front runner convictions. First of all, you're using pollingreport numbers and apparently THEY have the numbers wrong because i took the data right off those three firms databases. Not a compendium, but directly from those companies. So, i don't have the wrong numbers, you do.

Secondly, i didn't say you mentioned re-elect numbers. I mentioned them for emphasis. Apparently that simple fact eluded you.

Lastly, you have yet to demonstrate a single piece of data to support your contention that "more than half" of the people are pro-Bush. In every case, you weasel away from your own position with "pretty close" disclaimers.

As a teacher of statistical mechanics, i can tell you that you aren't alone in not knowing how to interpret statistical data. I see it all the time. But, you ARE among the group that doesn't understand what the numbers actually say.

My convictions are that we shouldn't be as pessmistic as are you because the data doesn't support your pessimism. You can spin it however you wish, but you're contending one thing and then providing data that doesn't support those contentions as if it did. That's not a problem with my convictions. It's a problem with your logic.
The Professor

[boxster]

39. Thank you so much for pointing how dumb I am. I had no idea.

Thanks for pointing out that I'm just too stupid to interpret poll data. Wow, I'm in awe of your superior intelligence.

Could you perhaps try to be just a little more arrogant and condescending? No, actually, I'm not sure that you could.

Well, I can condescend with the best of them, so here goes - let's see if I can put this in terms that even YOU can understand.

I was doing algebra in the first grade, calculus by junior high, and have spent my entire adult life working in math-related fields, so I think I'm quite qualified to interpret poll data, thank you very much.

You, however, in spite of your superiority complex and alleged education, apparently cannot grasp simple mathematical concepts such as "more than half".

First, how much statistical analysis does it actually take to understand that 58% is "more than half"? That would be none.

Since you don't seem to understand this concept, this might help you:
1) 50% = 1/2
2) >50% = >1/2
3) 1/2 = "one half"
4) ">" = "greater than" = "more than"
5) >50% = more than one half
6) 58% > 50%
7) 58% is more one half

It certainly doesn't take an advanced math degree or a statistics professor to understand that 58% is "more than half".

Now, let's see how this applies to my assertion that "most polls" show that half of the American public is pro-Bush.

To start, MSNBC today stated: "His (Bush's) personal approval rating rose by 6 percentage points overnight, from 52 percent to 58 percent."

Now, while you have tried to convince me that I'm too stupid to interpret this, my guess here would be that this statement means that more than half of the respondents are pro-Bush. That sounds remarkably like what I have asserted previously.

Let's see. Again, this might help you:
1) Approve = Pro (as opposed to Against, or Con, which better describes Bush)
2) 58% > 50%
3) 50% = 1/2
4) 1/2 = "one half"
5) 58% > one half
6) "His" = Bush

Yep, 58% Pro-Bush.

58%. Wow, that's more than half! His previous rating, 52%, also happens to be more than half. What a shock!

Imagine my surprise when I realized that this poll fit my statement both before and after the capture of Saddam. Maybe I'm not as dumb as you think I am.

Oh. But, wait. There's more.

Re: polling report -"THEY have the numbers wrong"

Too funny. Let me guess - every poll that doesn't meet your agenda is going to magically "have the numbers wrong", right? You claim to be an expert in statistics, but you can't understand how two completely different samples could vary like this?

Oh, please. You couldn't even be bothered to research the data you posted (see Zogby data below), but we're supposed to accept your word on what data is right and what is wrong? I think not.

Approval ratings and head-to-head polls are more indicative of voter intent and candidate approval than generic re-elect data. On this, apparently we disagree, since you're putting so much stock in re-elect data and pretty much ignoring the rest.

It's my assertion, so I'm going with my theory.

First, approval ratings from some major polls:
ABCNews: approval rating - 57
http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/940a1SaddamCaptured.pdf

Gallup: approval rating - 55, before the capture
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031211.asp

MSNBC: approval rating - 58, as I already noted
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3721220/

CBS News: approval rating - 58
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/16/opinion/polls/main588937.shtml

Hmm. Those all appear to indicate "more than half" of the respondents are for Bush. Interesting. Seems familiar.

Your "data", by the way, Mr. Statistics Professor, appears to have been pulled out of thin air. Zogby, for example, has Bush at 49% approval as of 12/6/03, not the 46% you seem to have fabricated.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=765

A little advice: if you're going to quote something as a reference, you should probably bother to look it up.

Next topic: my pessimism

You then pointed out the unbelievable nerve I must have in being pessimistic about Dean's chances against Bush next fall.

Ok, Mr. Statistics god, what does your first-class statistical knowledge and experience tell you about this MSNBC poll result?

52% Bush
31% Dean

52/31.

Once again, even though you've asserted that I'm too dumb to interpret these results, I think I can figure this one out on my own. Here's a clue: Dean is 21% behind Bush.

Your superior statistical analysis skills, however, somehow interpreted those numbers differently and led you to the inescapable conclusion that we should see nothing but optimism and sunny days ahead with Bush 21% in the lead.

I cannot fathom how you can possibly believe that, but apparently you do. And, you think that MY logic has problems? You're living in a fantasy world where a 21% hole isn't cause for concern, and you're questioning MY logic?

Then, you inexplicably accuse me of spin. Spinning what? A 21% hole? Gee, how dare I think that a 21% lead for Bush is a bad thing!

Well, you know what? It is a bad thing. A 21% lead over our front-runner is most certainly cause for concern. If you want to lose next fall's election in a landslide, that's fine - feel free to hop, skip, jump and smile your blissful way to a possible 20 point loss.

Some of us want to win, however. That means looking at unpleasant facts like Bush's 20% lead. That means looking for reasons for that lead and not just glossing over it, assuming all is well.

By the way, those MSNBC results have been posted by numerous other DUers today. So, I guess that you're saying that every single one of those posters is wrong, and you're right.

Actually, come to think of it - that's exactly what you're saying. We must be in that group you mentioned that can't possibly understand what we're seeing. I guess we're the slow class.

So, so far you've nitpicked my previous links because of a couple of percentage points (49/51 +/-3, for example, which apparently cannot ever exceed 50 in your world - Bush's approval always stops at 49.9%), you fabricated poll results, ignored links to polls that show my assertion was accurate, and you acted like you're God's gift to political statistics, all while insinuating that I'm just too stupid to understand.

Wow, what a performance. I don't think you could have been wrong on more levels if you'd tried to do so intentionally.

And, then you accuse me of being a "weasel" and argue that "simple facts" elude me. Hilarious. Next, I'll be scurrying like a cockroach.

Simple facts, hmm? Simple facts like "58% is more than half"? Simple things like bothering to actually provide "real" data instead of numbers you just made up or were too lazy to confirm?

If you had bothered to actually read my original post, you'd have noted that I said the following, "According to most polls"

Most, not all. Not every. Not 100%. Most.

I realize now that I was wrong to question your convictions. It is obvious that they are rock solid and unassailable by mere facts.

I've provided you with documentation that supports this claim. You provided nothing to disprove my assertion, but you did manage to make a couple of personal attacks.

Frankly, Mr. Professor, you have no clue who I am or what I know about statistics. You're not the only one on Earth who understands them, so I would suggest that you quit acting like it. Your condescension and arrogance help neither you nor your candidate.

Speaking of statistics for a moment, wouldn't you agree that picking and choosing which data to accept and which data to ignore based entirely on personal feelings or preconceived intended results is most definitely NOT going to lead to solid statistical analysis?

Don't look now, but that's exactly what you've been doing.

You've discarded or flatly ignored data which supports my assertion, posted only data that you believe will prove your claim, and even fabricated or at least misrepresented at least one piece of information.

Apparently, your understanding of solid statistical data isn't any better than you perceived mine to be.

Don't claim that your statistical background makes your opinion better than mine if you're not willing to apply those principles to the topic at hand. Obviously, in this case, you did not.

I looked at all of the available data before forming my opinion and posting my assertions.

Can you honestly make the same claim of your response?



Mods: frankly, I fully expect this post to get deleted, and if you feel that deleting it is necessary, I apologize for the inconvenience. This guy just picked the wrong day to attack me with this ridiculous, petty, irrelevant nonsense. I honestly have no clue why I wasted my time on this....

[boxster]

40. I'm waiting, Professor. Where is all of this data you claim to have that

proves my assertions wrong? Show me where "most polls" show Bush under 50% approval.

I'll save you some time. You aren't going to find them. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, so you just use hit-and-run tactics, then move on.

Too bad your superior logic and convictions have exactly nothing to do with reality.

[NicoleM]

34. My point is

what I bolded: it is way too soon to say whether Saddam's capture will have any real effect on the election.

Once we get past the primary, I have little doubt that less than half the country will approve of Bush. He's had no real opposition up until now. How are people supposed to oppose him when just about all they hear from the media is how great he is?

[boxster]

38. I agree entirely.

It is certainly too early to determine the effect this will have. My guess is that it won't matter much in the end.

Perhaps my posting makes too much of the Saddam capture. My point was that Bush already has pretty solid support. We disagree on the level of that support, but I honestly think you may be being a bit optimistic. I expect Bush to be in the low 50's, at least short-term. It's only one poll, but MSNBC's poll showing Bush/Dean 52/31 as of today is pretty disconcerting.

My overall point was that we need someone to counter the strong possibility that Bush's support is primarily because of his perceived strength on national defense, the war on terror, and so on.

Frankly, I just don't see Dean being as effective in that sense as Kerry or Clark could be. They counter Bush's false military bravado with real experience. Dean's military deferment, even though it's been grossly misrepresented by the media and others, does make him somewhat less effective in countering Bush in these areas.

I chose Clark instead of Kerry because I think he's a stronger candidate head-to-head vs. Bush. I'll certainly vote for whomever wins the nomination.

Edit: fixed typo

[LTR]

25. Here's a REAL Iraq stategy

Courtesy of Wes Clark:

http://clark04.com/issues/iraqstrategy/

I've liked everything I've seen from him so far.

[HFishbine]

31. I don't follow

If your premise is that there will now be more pro-war voters, why should we nominate an anti-war candidate?

[boxster]

33. My premise isn't about more pro-war voters.

My premise is that Bush is considered by those who approve of him as strong on national security, defense, and the war on terror. The media and the Bush Administration will make every effort to ensure that the election is about those issues.

That being the case, my opinion is that we need a candidate who makes the assertion that Bush's strengths are national security and so on look silly by comparison.

To me, that means someone with extensive experience in those areas. For my money, that means Clark or Kerry, as their experiences bring credibility to those areas by default. I think Clark is a stronger candidate head-to-head with Bush, though I'd be perfectly happy voting for Kerry, too (I will quite happily vote for whomever wins the nomination.)

By the way, please feel free to provide some documentation to support your assertion that Clark is anti-war, as that statement is ludicrous. As he has quite often stated (and as his military background shows), he believes in military action as a last resort, but he certainly isn't going to rule it out altogether. Anyone who believes otherwise is willfully ignoring the obvious.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. By November

In the General Election I think the issue will be less sharply focused on whether or not we should have gone into Iraq when and how we did, than it is now for Democratic Party Primary voters. We Democratic activists are the ones most likely to apply a litmus test on who we can consider supporting, based on their stances regarding pre Iraq invasion resolutions. We are disproportionate to the general public in the importance we assign to stances taken in this specific instance, at that specific moment. By the time the Democrats have their nominee he, even if it were Lieberman heavans forbid, will be positioned left of Bush on U.S. use of military force. Lieberman, for example, is still much more of a multinationalist than Bush.

The General Public, in my opinion, will be much more concerned about the front windshield than the rear view mirror. Activists are the ones who carry the deepest grudges, which is actually appropriate since we are the ones most involved in evaluating who we want to represent us in General Elections. However come September there will be one Republican running against one Democrat (and unfortunately likely a Green). The public will still be concerned about foreign affairs. We will still have troops in Iraq, soldiers will still be getting killed there. `Events of the last three years have made Americans more aware and concerned about events happening in the world outside of our borders than at any time since the height of the Cold War. I believe that the general public will have limited patience, by the time of the fall campaign, for repeated rehashings of the nuances of Congressional resolutions.

Any Democrat, who is now in position to possibly win the nomination, will start out with the position that under certain circumstances (like in Afghanistan for instance) the U.S. will need to use military force. The context of the debate will involve the specifics of those circumstances IN ANTICIPATION of future threats. Americans will be sizing up which man they want in the White House making those FUTURE judgement calls. Who has the strength, who has the vision, and who has the experience needed to make the right calls? Of course if the U.S. suffers a total melt down in Iraq beating Bush will become a lot easier. But first, I hope we can avoid a total Iraq melt down, it is too frightening to think of the consequences if there is one. Second, it would be foolish to plan an election campaign counting on Iraq so totally and obviously blowing up in Bush's face. In times of War, and these are those times, the public tends to want seasoned leadership, and that is what Bush will be posing as.