When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
How much of a political bloodbath will 2008 be for the DNC???
Scott Malensek
16 years ago
NICE post
Starting 2/6/08, the Democratic Party is gonna have a tough awakening; one their trying hard not to have right now. That awakening is that Americans want success in Iraq…not unconditional retreat. Moreover, the Democratic nominee (pretty much decided 2/6/08) will be either Sen Clinton or Obama, and both have pledged to keep tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq. So from Feb-Nov 08, the Democratic Party has to find a resonating theme that will not be whining about Iraq (since the nominee’s position is essentially going to be the same as the President’s and any Republican’s), and they won’t be able to just whine away with “this administration…” rants. Nope. They’re finally gonna have to stand up and be FOR something as there will be nothing left to substantively be against. Pander to the left nutroots as they may, they will have to come up with something for the DINOs independents, and RINOs if they want to win a general, and that’s what those 9 months are going to be about. Since they’re gonna have to alienate their base to win over moderates, and since the base is already seeing that they’ve been played with the whole “non-binding new direction in Iraq” BS, one wonders if the Democratic Party base will really be motivated as in the past. I don’t see it happening. ‘Course, Republican apathy is pretty strong, so it could be another 2000 White Bread vs Wonder bread contest with no one caring to participate, and everyone complaining about the results.
Obama has repeatedly stated his opposition to the the war on terror, and has indicated his support for Hilary in seeking to repeal the 2002 authorization.
Both voted against legislation that funded our troops but lacked a timetable for defeat.
Obama sat out on the John Doe vote….
They both have clearly communicated their desire to lose in Iraq buy supporting troop withdrawal, ludicrous benchmarks and funding cuts. If by some monstrous event, one or both win the 08 presidential election, Iraq will truly be lost.
————————————— Moreover, the Democratic nominee (pretty much decided 2/6/08) will be either Sen Clinton or Obama, and both have pledged to keep tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq.
Actually, I do believe (trust would be the wrong word) their statements about keeping troops in Iraq. I do so because making the comments is fully counter to their campaigns (suggesting the comments then are not pandering). Also, I think that (in typical Democrat form) once in power, a President Clinton or President Obama would 1) be devoid of new ideas on how to succeed since they’re empty hats on the subject today and 2) would rather keep forces there than have to deal with the aftermath, then try to explain to the American people why a 3rd invasion is necessary, but not the result of their own pandering-driven-fubars.
Remember, there are two huge rules in politics:
The first rule is that everything is a choice between doing something and doing nothing.
The second rule is that whatever the choice is (to do something or do nothing) if it turns out badly, point distracting fingers and switch to lawyer mode for presenting argumentative excuses as to why it’s not your fault at all.
Everyone knows (some still search for Chamberlin-style means of denial) that if the US just ran for the border and boats, Iraq would be far far far worse. Whether it’s the
-breakdown to full on civil war and anarchy or
-explosion into regional war between Sunni nations and Shia nations
-Turkish invasion of Kurdistan
-Collapse of govt leading to Afghan-style terrorist safe haven/breeding ground
Those are the most likely results of an American premature evacuation. Dreamers try to convince themselves that if the US left, there’d suddenly be peace, harmony, singing in the streets, freedom, happiness, a swingset in every backyard, and (per Rep Murtha) the Iraqi govt would round up/crush Al Queda in days.
No evidence supports that dream at all. Zero, nada, zip, and the people seeking the Oval Office know that. It’s why rather than fully pander to their base. Any one of the dozens of candidates could and lock the nomination by saying, “On my first day in office I will order the removal of all US forces from Iraq.”
Instead, Sen Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and down the line…all are prepping their base for the hard truth that the war will continue even under a Democratic Party panderer as President.
(am coffee ramblin)
Short answer: yeah, I believe the Democrats on this one.
Scott: You forgot the third rule of politics and it trumps all: Democrats will never be held to the same standard of accountability that they daily demand of Republicans.
But I agree that they are unlikely to immediately pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq. They’d be most likely to muck things up with some change in strategy along the lines of that currently expressed by Hillary (pull back to bases, train Iraqis, etc) which is pretty much the strategy we had before Democrats demanded we change the strategy.
So Skye is likely right and Democrats either have a desire to lose in Iraq or they just haven’t a clue how to win.
Either way, another corollary to the prime rule above is that the media will instantly change focus and we’re likely to see less reporting of violence in Iraq. All of a sudden children flying kites will fill our television screens followed by some oily mainstream “news” anchor attributing the change to Hillary.
‘Course, Republican apathy is pretty strong, so it could be another 2000 White Bread vs Wonder bread contest with no one caring to participate, and everyone complaining about the results.
Great discussion but on this point Scott we have to look at who gets the nomination. If Hillary gets it I think we will see a huge amount of Republicans out to vote, she instills that much animosity. Reason why I’m praying she gets the nomination…
Can you see the fawning media stories about the first woman President and first Black Vice President?
Scott Malensek
16 years ago
“Great discussion but on this point Scott we have to look at who gets the nomination. If Hillary gets it I think we will see a huge amount of Republicans out to vote, she instills that much animosity. Reason why I’m praying she gets the nomination…”
Man, that is SO TRUE. She really does motivate the base as well as most RINOs and indys. I too hope she gets the nom as well as Sen Thompson. Their debates wouldn’t be foo foo Larry King puffs or Babs Wa Wa asking “what kind of tree are you” (weeping, whining Willow vs English Oak in a Hillary/Thompson debate imo)
Yep, best way to motivate the right is a Hillary ticket. Very true
While Hillary will be a formidable opponent she would definitely generate a 90+% voter turnout on the Republican side. Good thing for conservatives. Now, if another Democrat is the nominee all bets are off.
How much of a political bloodbath will 2008 be for the DNC???
NICE post
Starting 2/6/08, the Democratic Party is gonna have a tough awakening; one their trying hard not to have right now. That awakening is that Americans want success in Iraq…not unconditional retreat. Moreover, the Democratic nominee (pretty much decided 2/6/08) will be either Sen Clinton or Obama, and both have pledged to keep tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq. So from Feb-Nov 08, the Democratic Party has to find a resonating theme that will not be whining about Iraq (since the nominee’s position is essentially going to be the same as the President’s and any Republican’s), and they won’t be able to just whine away with “this administration…” rants. Nope. They’re finally gonna have to stand up and be FOR something as there will be nothing left to substantively be against. Pander to the left nutroots as they may, they will have to come up with something for the DINOs independents, and RINOs if they want to win a general, and that’s what those 9 months are going to be about. Since they’re gonna have to alienate their base to win over moderates, and since the base is already seeing that they’ve been played with the whole “non-binding new direction in Iraq” BS, one wonders if the Democratic Party base will really be motivated as in the past. I don’t see it happening. ‘Course, Republican apathy is pretty strong, so it could be another 2000 White Bread vs Wonder bread contest with no one caring to participate, and everyone complaining about the results.
I agree with you on the coronation..er..nomination of Hilary. However, do you trust their statements in regards to maintaining our troops in Iraq?
Consider this statement from clinton:
“If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.” – candidate Hillary Clinton
Hilary has gone so far as to seek a of the 2002 Authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. I believe this takes the idea of “I voted for the war before I voted against it” to a whole new level!
Obama has repeatedly stated his opposition to the the war on terror, and has indicated his support for Hilary in seeking to repeal the 2002 authorization.
Both voted against legislation that funded our troops but lacked a timetable for defeat.
Obama sat out on the John Doe vote….
They both have clearly communicated their desire to lose in Iraq buy supporting troop withdrawal, ludicrous benchmarks and funding cuts. If by some monstrous event, one or both win the 08 presidential election, Iraq will truly be lost.
—————————————
Moreover, the Democratic nominee (pretty much decided 2/6/08) will be either Sen Clinton or Obama, and both have pledged to keep tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq.
buy=by
Sheesh..
Actually, I do believe (trust would be the wrong word) their statements about keeping troops in Iraq. I do so because making the comments is fully counter to their campaigns (suggesting the comments then are not pandering). Also, I think that (in typical Democrat form) once in power, a President Clinton or President Obama would 1) be devoid of new ideas on how to succeed since they’re empty hats on the subject today and 2) would rather keep forces there than have to deal with the aftermath, then try to explain to the American people why a 3rd invasion is necessary, but not the result of their own pandering-driven-fubars.
Remember, there are two huge rules in politics:
The first rule is that everything is a choice between doing something and doing nothing.
The second rule is that whatever the choice is (to do something or do nothing) if it turns out badly, point distracting fingers and switch to lawyer mode for presenting argumentative excuses as to why it’s not your fault at all.
Everyone knows (some still search for Chamberlin-style means of denial) that if the US just ran for the border and boats, Iraq would be far far far worse. Whether it’s the
-breakdown to full on civil war and anarchy or
-explosion into regional war between Sunni nations and Shia nations
-Turkish invasion of Kurdistan
-Collapse of govt leading to Afghan-style terrorist safe haven/breeding ground
Those are the most likely results of an American premature evacuation. Dreamers try to convince themselves that if the US left, there’d suddenly be peace, harmony, singing in the streets, freedom, happiness, a swingset in every backyard, and (per Rep Murtha) the Iraqi govt would round up/crush Al Queda in days.
No evidence supports that dream at all. Zero, nada, zip, and the people seeking the Oval Office know that. It’s why rather than fully pander to their base. Any one of the dozens of candidates could and lock the nomination by saying, “On my first day in office I will order the removal of all US forces from Iraq.”
Instead, Sen Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and down the line…all are prepping their base for the hard truth that the war will continue even under a Democratic Party panderer as President.
(am coffee ramblin)
Short answer: yeah, I believe the Democrats on this one.
Scott: You forgot the third rule of politics and it trumps all: Democrats will never be held to the same standard of accountability that they daily demand of Republicans.
But I agree that they are unlikely to immediately pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq. They’d be most likely to muck things up with some change in strategy along the lines of that currently expressed by Hillary (pull back to bases, train Iraqis, etc) which is pretty much the strategy we had before Democrats demanded we change the strategy.
So Skye is likely right and Democrats either have a desire to lose in Iraq or they just haven’t a clue how to win.
Either way, another corollary to the prime rule above is that the media will instantly change focus and we’re likely to see less reporting of violence in Iraq. All of a sudden children flying kites will fill our television screens followed by some oily mainstream “news” anchor attributing the change to Hillary.
Mike, you are on the mark on all accounts
🙂
Great discussion but on this point Scott we have to look at who gets the nomination. If Hillary gets it I think we will see a huge amount of Republicans out to vote, she instills that much animosity. Reason why I’m praying she gets the nomination…
Watch out for a Hillary-Obama ticket.
Can you see the fawning media stories about the first woman President and first Black Vice President?
“Great discussion but on this point Scott we have to look at who gets the nomination. If Hillary gets it I think we will see a huge amount of Republicans out to vote, she instills that much animosity. Reason why I’m praying she gets the nomination…”
Man, that is SO TRUE. She really does motivate the base as well as most RINOs and indys. I too hope she gets the nom as well as Sen Thompson. Their debates wouldn’t be foo foo Larry King puffs or Babs Wa Wa asking “what kind of tree are you” (weeping, whining Willow vs English Oak in a Hillary/Thompson debate imo)
Yep, best way to motivate the right is a Hillary ticket. Very true
Watch out for a Hillary-Obama ticket.
I’ve been considering this pair since Obama was elected Senator, Mike.
Yep, best way to motivate the right is a Hillary ticket. Very true
So, as a democrat, I should be contacting my DNC delegates and expressing my desire for them to select Hilary as the DNC Presidential nominee?
Skye,
While Hillary will be a formidable opponent she would definitely generate a 90+% voter turnout on the Republican side. Good thing for conservatives. Now, if another Democrat is the nominee all bets are off.
So I say GO HILLARY!
Wish I could be so optimistic. But I learned my lesson in 2006.