59% of Dems Want Candidate Who Backed Iraq War (in NH, Iowa, SC)

Are we (Pogressives) shooting ourselves and our candidates in the foot by insisting that they be "pure" about the Iraq war? We are definitely in the minority. Why should our candidates even listen to us?

Instead of insisting that our candidates go off a cliff and commit political suicide I submit that we instead work on informing the American public:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38335-2003Oct16.html
"In Iowa, 37 percent of the likely caucus attendees said they preferred a candidate who had always opposed the war; 59 percent said they preferred someone who backed ousting Hussein but also criticized Bush's approach.

New Hampshire voters were nearly identical in their views. In South Carolina, the division was less significant, with 41 percent saying they preferred someone consistently opposed to the war and 50 percent saying they wanted a critic of Bush who also supported action against Hussein.

"They're not looking for a Johnny One-Note who has passed a litmus test on Iraq as the sole criterion for selecting a candidate,"

This explains part of the reason that Kerry, Gephardt and others might have voted for the Iraq war.

this is why Dean won't win

and won't when it comes to the war which was illegal and unmoral. I will not violate my own personal morals by supporting someone who voted and supported an illegal war. Besides in alot of polls Dean (anti-Iraq War candidate) is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire.

is that Dean will have a hard time getting votes from moderate to conservative democrats and independants.

sure he's built up a huge following from most liberal democrats, they're were the most active early on drumming up support for Dean.

I'd say that about 2/3 of our base hasn't even paid attention to the candidates, and won't start tuning in until around Christmas time. I think Dean will have a hard time getting there support, and at that time the campaign of Gephardt, Kerry, and hopefull Edwards will pick up steam.

i honestly think that our best ticket would be Gephardt/Edwards or Edwards/Gephardt, we can win all the states we won in 2000 and would have a much better chance at arkansas, missouri, louisiana etc.

I like Dean, but it's just too much of a risk running him. he's already been branded a looney lib who didn't support the removal of a mass murderer(you know how they'll spin it) the repugs can't attack Gephardt and Edwards that way.

they will spin anything that is the right wing, it doesn't matter what is or who they are they will spin it and the candidate believe it or not will have an opportunity to counter it. I don't think Dean will have a hard time getting their support he is actually having a hard time picking up support from the far left. But being against the Iraq war is not a looney far left position. Also you are assuming southerners are so dumb that they will vote for a southerner just because they are a southerner, that wasn't the case for Gore as he only won 1 southern state. I will not support Edwards or Gephardt in the primaries.

most of the support will go to Dean, the far left will be unified.

gore was stuffy and rigid, it's the rep he had for 15 years and by 2000 it was too late to change it, it hurt him everywhere, north and south. Plush he had a boring, northern VP. Bush was a good old boy with a good old boy VP, and with some legal wrangling they were able to steal the election.

and I would support Kerry or Edwards.

do not know their man.

This isn't about traditional voting any more. This is about people thatDON'T CARE ABOUT THE WAR BECAUSE THEY CANT FIND A JOB! This is about the hundreds of thousands of independents,republicans, greens ,and NON VOTERS that aren't going to show up in your 20th century triangulation polling strategy who have joined the Dean campaign.. Guess what ? The 90's are OVER.So is the voting process you mention. This is new politics, and the people are energized and pissed off. It's not just the mythical "liberal base" whatever in the hell that is.

IF you think we're going to allow Carl Rove to define the issues in this campaign, you and everyone so boldly trumpeting his talking points ,whether on purpose or not, better wake up and vote Dem.

Never let the other guy tell you who to vote for.

It's still the economy. You know the last word.
:nuke:

eom

as Clark, Lieberman, and Gephardt nationally against Bush. The only one who does marginally better (but still loses to Bush is Kerry).
Kerry loses to Bush by 4%, Dean and Lieberman by 8%, and Gep and Clark by 9%. All have Bush under 50%.

It isn't like you couldn't have done both. I mean, I was for Saddam going away, but I was against THAT war from the beginning. Without clear questions, no clear conclusion can be drawn from that.

What Kerry, Gephardt, et al did in MY opinion was support Bush's approach when they voted for the resolution.

this will continue unless Iraq gets fixed really fast <which it won't>...so all those pro-war people will decrease.

Also, what about the Indies? Seems Dean has it going on here.

Hello President Dean!

edit: forgot indies

Before voters really make up their mind about who is going to receive their vote, they will also ask about other things (like, say, economic issues) and care about components of a candidate's character.

and dems that want to nominate W. Bush because he is doing the best job that a president has ever done. Cheerlead for whomever you want.
But SOMEONE will win the convention.
I suggest that we all vote for our gal in the primary and then vote for the dem candidate in Nov.

And if a pro war candidate wins the nomination, then the lefties will have to suck it up to beat Bush, or help Bush by voting Green.

:dem:

This administration controlled the intelligence and the media message. There were no WMD, there were no 45 minute immenent threats...but I sincerely believe that they were begging us to be anti-war on that vote. If we had voted our conscience properly, I have no doubt that another terrorist "event" would have happened and the Democrats would have been taken out for a generation or more. We'd have become the "Terrorist Appeaser Party".

The vote that no Democrat wanted was forced on us, a short 12 months after 9/11. The vote was specifically authorized to give Bush the authority to enforce the mandate of UN inspections. Most Presidents would have used this mandate precisely for that purpose....not this pResident. Instead, he got his war for cheap political gain (albeit temporary), he got his oil, his new bases (notice the timing of our getting kicked out of Saudi Arabia?), he got his pork contracts for Halliburton and Bechtel, and the Republicans have set-up shop in Iraq to siphon 100s of millions of taxpayer money in the new "break and fix" business model that was pioneered by Carlyle.

I hope that the unfolding events at home and in Iraq over the next 12 months will provide the backlash necessary to take back the Executive and Legislative branches...then we can begin to settle scores, fix our democratic institutions, and properly investigate the root cause of terror. Only then, will we return to the peace and prosperity that we enjoyed inj the 90s under Clinton.

n/t

The dems like Kerry, Edwards and Gephart knew that Bush was lying but voted to give him a blank check anyway. That shows lack of courage, lack of leadership and lack of judgment.

I may have to accept one of these candidates, but I don't think it's simply a matter of wanting "purity".

Those polls on the DemocracyCorp web site seem suspect to me. South Carolina had a closer rating between candidates who voted for the war but oppose it now than Iowa and New Hampshire. I think that's bogus.

If 59% support a war monger then that is who will be nominated. What is so hard about that to understand?

before they nominate the wrong guy. :)

They have bought hook, line and sinker into this no outsider can win, and I suppose that is true if the outsider is castigated by the leadership in the party who are taking their directions from the repug party. Something is seriously wrong with the Dem party that needs some major work if they are to remain a party. I would hate to think or you might say I am beginning to think that if the Dems don't win that this could signal the end for the party. The Dems talk but the repugs talk and ACT and therein lie the difference.

The majority of the politicians will go with their constituents.

n/t

Dean has benefitted greatly in distinguishing his "product".

First off, any of the candidates can fall into that category.

And ALL of the candidates supported the ouster of Saddam.

Why not look at the reality and who has received the most support both in numbers of voters and in contributions.

We all know who that is, but why harp on the facts?

:)

"In all three states, likely Democratic voters said they preferred a nominee who supports the party's core values and stands up to Bush rather than one who appeals more broadly to independents. Asked whether it was more important to nominate a candidate who stands up for Democratic Party values or one who has the best chance of defeating Bush, Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic voters said electability was more important."

IOW better hide today's Zogby numbers from all these Dems or there is about to be huge swing Kerry's way.

Other than that, it has Deans name all over it. :)

Im just giving you grief.....

And yes, it is a strong showing for Kerry as well. Kerry's a good candidate and I like him more and more. Wont change my first choice in Dean, but I think hes getting some of that old fire back and we need that in the Party.

I dont like what Washington does to good leaders, but then, that is why government was never meant to be a permanent installation of employment in the first place.

Perhaps our forefathers knew that to begin with, and in the long run realized that our Democracy would be threatened by allowing our leaders to overstay their welcome.

And look what we have today.....