WTF? This makes me so angry. Why don't they just hand him the election next year. Why even bother to run anyone. What the hell is going on?

You don't want people to start calling you Green.

WTF indeed. Now that the dems have found their spines again and see they will not be punished, they ain't gonna lie back and take it anymore. the bushivics are headed for immolation. GRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
they need a fire-breathing icon.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

It will be seen as more stonewalling. Everytime they say, "move on" they are making people think they are hiding something.

Clinton was urging them to do that, and it appears they have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

He is now becoming politically vulnerable but is a far cry from finished. This ain't gonna be over until we beat his ass in the election.

We're too caught up on expressing our anger at the state of things. It makes us look desperate. When people see a charge made by people who look desperate, it doesn't sway them. If we keep it up, we look whiny.

The trick is to keep the administration up against the ropes. If we let them rest, they'll push their spin until they find a way to make this a wedge issue. But, if we take the momentum and shift it to another focus, continuing to pound on the theme that what Bush has told us isn't what's really going on, we move things in our direction.

If this thing has wings, it'll take off whether or not our politicians try to push it. Leave the function of talk-show hosts to talk-show hosts.

and sign on to the ICC and have the whole Bush* administration along with Bechtel, Carlyle, Halliburton and it's subsidiaries tried and punished.

is the lesson learned in Vietnam.

Was there a war more horrific, and motivated by idiotic capitalist greed than Vietnam? Vietnam was more idiotic than Iraq by a slight margin.

Could the Dems win on the issue of Vietnam? No. In fact they lost twice. Why? Because a Commander in Chief is in total control of the war, and, to boot, Republicans have a built-in advantage on national security issues, no matter how ungrounded in fact that perception is.

When Nixon started getting public flak for Vietnam, he pretended he was going to end the draft and he pretended that he had a secret plan to end the war. This totally took the wind out of the Dems' sails. And it was dumb for the Dems to run almost entirely on wind which the Republicans had so much control over. Today, if the Dems run on the war, what would happen, applying the Nixon lesson? They'll find WMDs. I guarantee it. Even if they had "Made in USA" stamped on them, and they rolled off the production line at McDonnel Douglas on 4th of July 2004, if they're found on October 15, 2004, Bush will win the election. It's the sad fact of life in America. And that's just one of 20 or so strategies Bush would use.

You say you want to run on the war anyway? Well, how are you going to get over the perception that the Dems are weak on national security? Think of it as an advertising campaign. First you have to blow 100 million to create a perception that the Dem party is strong on national security (in the course of which, you create the notion among the voters that this is the single most important issue today). Once you've don that, you have 50 million left to argue that your candidate is better than the Republican candidate, which is still a toss-up question. In the end, you'll wind up with 51 million voters who will ask themselves, why, if national security is so important do I want to change horses in midstream? Hello second Bush administration, will be the answer to that question.

So what's Clinton doing? He's saying, folks, you're chasing your tails if all you can think about is war. There are 1 million reasons to vote Democratic other than the war, and those arguments are easily made, and they play to the streghts of the Democratic party, and the party should be coming up with a message which combines the notion that Bush has a credibility problem in relation to the war, but everything he does viz the Iraq war pales in comparison to the class warfare in which he has engaged against the America public.

and that is a perfect illustration for what is wrong in politics in america today, the people aren't listen'd to by their supposed REPS unless you have a large multi-national :puke:

what we can't use lies about war any more because of vietnam? :crazy:

or are you try'n to say they can't MULTI-TASK :shrug:

:hi:

peace

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

we should hear all ideas then...

MOVE ON!

:evilgrin:

peace

You know, the insult that was adopted by that incredibly effective endeavor Moveon.org?

Language, especially political language, often has sly and secret resonance.

Of course, you need an IQ over ten to get it and very few here today seem to meet that standard.

What bloody idiotic hysteria from people who should damn well know better.

I'm embarrassed by you. Simply embarrassed.