Can an anti-war Democrat win the White House ?

Many of us are supporters of Howard Dean because he was one of the first to come out against the war and he seemed to speak honestly. However, some are starting to question his sincerity. He seems to be playing the role that he started on his cameo role from K-Street, the new HBO series. But the question is, in my opinion, can an anti-war candidate at the top of the ticket, win the White House?

As we know, the White House has been on a full-fledged PR campaign for the last 2 or 3 days. Dick Cheney has been out there saying that some folks would have done "nothing" as a response to the terrorist threat. Even Laura Bush has been included in the PR push.

What is the response? Where is the response? Do the Democrats need to respond to these rainbow scenarios of this Administration? Will the people support the anti-war candidate over the war candidate? And would they be more likely to pick the Democratic "war" candidate over the Repub "war" candidate? Or would we be better as a Party to give the people a choice? Would we be better off to have an anti-war candidate at the top of the ticket? Any thoughts/

He makes this point often - that he is not against using American military might when it is needed. He is against invading sovern (sp??) countries when we don't need, and lying to the American people about the reasons for the invasion.

It seems to me that calling Dean or DK "anti-war" misses the point and makes a little of the warmongers argument for them.

It isn't Pro-war or anti-war.

It is stupid policies that don't work versus intelligent policies that do.

Many folks are beginning to question the wisdom of going to war unilaterally. They see their loved ones stuck over in Iraq and no reasonable timetable for the US getting out of there. They see an unlimited amount of money being poured into that country. I think what they will look at in a candidate is someone who can get us out of the mess we're in and keep us from getting into other quagmires. Therefore, an anti-war candidate who is pragmatic and has a plan for getting the troops home and having the UN help with paying for the cleanup will have a good chance of toppling Bush.

I think our candidates need to make these points also...

And Kucinich is really anti-war, EXCEPT for defense or true protection of a country being invaded by an agressor they can't handle. I think Dean is against this war, but I wouldn't call him anti-war.
I like Dean, but please be accurate. Kucinich is an extremely courageous man who has spoken out against Bush and his agenda for years now.

Dean is more like a Dove instead of a Pacifist. Dean's posistion is more like Germany's stance on foreign policy, I feel.

honest but I would call him one who tries to avoid war as the solution. Dennis would have served in the military actually if it hadnt been discovered he had a heart conditon as a senior in high school, his two brothers and his father served in the military during Vietnam and WWII respectively. That said hes probably like me, a dovish guy who respects those who fight for our country.

Peace is the opposite of money.

Well, Bill Gates for one, and many of the other high tech entrepeneurs, includint the E-Bay and Amazon folks. If you had said people profiteer during war and become obscenely wealthy, I would have agreed with you.

A lot of people got wealthy or at least more richer then, my dad's side was probably what I am now, middle class, and my mom's side however thats a whole new story and it explains my economic liberalism in a way too, you see they were poor even before the depression, big families, the fathers were coal miners, I shall always remember my family's past situation. Sorry for acting nostlagic but my working class roots has a lot to do with me being very pro labor and etc.

Bill Gates, for instance, is selling all kinds of nifty supersecret software to the bush regime to help them empower you to have the knowledge that john ashcroft knows exactly what underpants you are wearing, where you bought them, when and why.

It's very true that, throughout America's history, conflicts have helped people with connections make more money during war thant they could have made during peace.

Kevin Phillips, in Wealth and Democracy, goes through American history and described who and how well-connected insiders have made money thanks to conflicts (and in the next volume he can add a few pages about the Carlyle Group, Halliburton and Bechtel).

But I think it's obvious that society creates more wealth and spreads it more broadly during times of peace.

The long-term interests of the species as a whole, not to mention the nation, and the future of your grandchildren are MUCH better served by peace.

The short term interests of Halliburton, Raytheon and ilk, however are much better served by war, and until there are some very basic changes made, they are the ones with the guns, so they are the ones who decide.

n/t

First you suggest the reality be framed just so to make it more palatable for those who may be upset by the truth, and now you wonder whether the truth is too risky.

Well, you can see where avoiding the reality has led us. And you can see the wave of support for Dean from voters who feel that their views and concerns have not be addressed.

If your agenda is to pitch some rationalization for the candidates who now find themselves at a disadvantage for choosing political expedience over opposing the illegitimate arrogant idiot son, well, they have proved themselves unworthy of leadership.

My point, in the previous post in which you are referencing, was that there might be a better way to communicate sometimes rather than with simple emotions. My point was that sometimes we do not communicate smartly or wisely...not that we should distort or change the truth, but that we present it in a more rational and honest manner so as not to permit these "asshole fascists" from using the war to their advantage when it should be our issue, because we have the truth on our side this time and we should not throw it away...

This wasn't a war. Afghanistan wasn't a war either...it
was a crime scene. 9/11 wasn't a war either...it was a
crime scene.

Let's stop calling these wars. Let's call this occupation
and colonization now...first steps of the PNAC.

to qualify for the definition of war.

If he comes on saying stuff like "war is wrong!" or "we should Talk instead of fight" yes he has lost.

But if he (like dean) says like.. " bush had no evidence", or how bush wastes money on iraq when theres OTHER countries that were responsible or how we shoudd find bin ladin instead.. yes he has a GOOD chance of winning

Dean's stance on the war is just part of the reason he would be a horrible, horrible candidate.

Unlike Clark, he's a governor from a small, extremely liberal, new england state and he's known for a major socially liberal stance(just like Dukakis)

Unlike Clark, a major part of his presidential platform is to raise income taxes on the middle class (think Mondale)

and Unlike Clark, OR MCGOVERN, his anti-war stance is accompanied by zero national security, foreign relations, or armed services(in congress or personal) credentials.

I recognize that I am not a mainstream Dem. I'm pretty far to the left. I am willing to compromise my core beliefs to rid the White House of the BFEE. I have to support Clark because he can win.

who say Dean is actually a centrist and a financial conservative. I agree that he will pull to the center after New Hampshire.

The center is not a bad place to be, in my opinion: remember the saying, "Be not the first nor the last."

But anyone who is going to pull in the Independent and dissatisfied Republican voters must be strong in Homeland Security and Foreign Policy.

Even those who are strongly anti-war must have a sound Foreign Policy, and SOMEONE must get our guys out of Iraq.

I'm keeping some powder dry for Clark. I want to study those 4 speeches that he says he's going to give where he outlines his planks for the Democratic candidacy. I think he's made a good beginning with his 3-pronged job-creation idea. We just need to know more.

One thing I do know, we will never get a Democrat in the White House unless we're run a candidate who is well-centered and able to woo voters from the left and from the right. As badly as I hate to say it, I don't see Dean having the Foreign Policy plan that will hold up. Maybe he'll come up with one.

and since the public mostly agrees now, why not?

Because I will vote for them...



And you will vote for them.

Even though Americans are becoming more disgusted by post-war developments, we must remember that most of the voters STILL think it's a 'good thing Saddam is gone', overall. Hell, even *I* agree with that narrow statement, no further than it goes.

We need to be extremely careful with how we deal with this issue, and not let other EQUALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES like the economy, health-care, job loss, etc. be shoved aside or minimized.

We must be very careful how we handle this issue. We actually have the strongest position if we play our hand correctly, in my opinion. But we have to be smarter.

Governor Dean Foresaw Today's Problems in Iraq

Video available at www.howarddean.tv

BURLINGTON--One year ago today, Congress gave President Bush blank check authority to go to war in Iraq. On September 19, 2002, at his weekly gubernatorial press conference, Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., was asked about the congressional resolution and the president's rush to war.

At that time, he explained that the president and the administration had not made an adequate case for war nor had he planned an exit strategy if the U.S. was to occupy Iraq.

Now, as the administration offers one evolving justification for the war after another, and as the U.S. effort to secure and rebuild Iraq flounders from a lack of planning and support, the governor's words ring truer than ever before.

"The president will be supported by the country if he makes the case that Saddam Hussein has atomic weapons or biological weapons and can deliver them against either us or our allies. The president has not made that case," Governor Dean said at the time. "He has said Saddam is an evil man. Well, there are a lot of evil people. Before our sons and daughters come home in pine boxes, I think it's incumbent upon us to have a better reason than 'he's an evil man.'

"The president must be truthful about the length of this effort. This is where my fundamental disagreement with the president's foreign policy comes into play. The president does not believe in nation-building. I believe we have to nation build as part of our long-range defense strategy," Dean continued. "My argument is that the president should never go into a regime like Iraq or Afghanistan unless he's prepared to do what it takes to turn those nations, as difficult as it may be, into middle-class democracies where women fully participate in the economic and political life of those countries....

"The president has to be up front with the American people. If we go into Iraq, we'll be there for ten years with American troops on the ground in the most volatile region of the world.... Where he's going to get into trouble is: (1) going in without adequate support either internationally or at home.... what's he going to do when we're there? He ought to listen to Colin Powell. Colin Powell's philosophy is that you never go in anywhere unless you have an exit strategy. We have no exit strategy from Iraq," Dean concluded.

Video of the governor's September 19, 2002 press conference is available at www.howarddean.tv. The original video is available at www.streaming.cctv.org, click on the 9-19-02 press conference at the bottom of the page to launch it.

position. I really dislike the term anti-war because it implies an unwillingness to defend oneself.

I'll try to be more careful to say anti-IRAQ-war in the future.

No one running is expressly anti-war. Most are anti-Iraq, that is about it.

Kucinich is as close as it comes and he will never make it to the nomination.

I am convinced that by this time next year ONLY an anti-war candidate will have a prayer. Indeed, the more anti-war the better.

But by anti-war I mean "anti-being-stupid-about-war," not-anti IWR. (Though I think the IWR was terrible, too.)

In other words, as long as the candidate has intelligent and critical things to say about the war--Clark, Kerry, Dean come to mind--they can beat Bush. Lieberman, bless his heart, can't be against the war without being against himself.