If you were running for president right now,

would you truly be struck speechless by Saddam's capture? Or by binLaden's capture? Or by Reagan's death? Wouldn't you have planned out your take on each of those scenarios well in advance. Give the candidates some credit, folks; they must be prepared for these events, and have thought out how this shifts their campaigns. If they haven't; if this flusters and throws them for a loop, then that's useful knowledge in advance of voting for them.

And just so you'll have something to reply with, what you do do if you were (fill in with candidate of your choice) in response to Saddam's capture?

because I'd really like to see some responses to this. If it sinks faster in the evening than Ozymandias' threads, so be it.

to convince people that they are the best possible choice for a leader then wouldn't you naturally have worked out your responses in not only these cases but in the case that WMDs were found?

"Are you undecided between Bush and {Democratic Nominee}? If so, ask yourself the same question which Ronald Reagan asked you 24 years ago:

"'Are you better off now than you were four years ago?'"

say that your heart goes out to his family... yadayadayada.
Thank him for his service to the country, great american..... yadayadayada
then write a scathing editorial to a "pet" publication.

wasn't the only reason that might have been the only one worth a struggle this:
The guy was a ruthless SOB
...but no threat to us.

I'd have one focus. Bush. All my efforts, all my stumps, would revolve around painting Bush as Jack Palance in the movie Shane. As a Cattle Baron running the little guy out of town. As a person who is making the town more dangerous instead of safer. I would paint myself as Shane, keep enough mystery about my past that efforts to penetrate it are difficult.

I would stay on message, keep a populist air about myself, and allow events like this to pass over as if they were acts of nature. Reagan dies... sometimes it rains. Osama gets captured... sometimes earthquakes destroy things. Never deviate from the message - Jack Palance is ruining the country. And never forget the real villain is behind Jack.

Edwards, yes he did or he just relies on his skills to deal with things as the happen as lawyers are trained to do. Either way a masterful job. Kucinich, either he was planning to go 180 on 'leave Iraq now' if Husein was found or he was just inspired. Clark, well perhaps that one was planned, it was one dimensional as he can be.

The capture of Saddam Hussein does nothing to bring living-wage jobs back to the U.S. Those jobs left because the rightwing tax structure permitted and even encouraged corporations to move production to cheap labor markets.

The capture of Saddam Hussein does nothing to solve the problems of crumbling infrastructure in this country. It does not build roads or hospitals, libraries or schools.

The capture of Saddam Hussein does nothing to resolve the growing health care crisis in this country. Whether he goes to trial in Baghdad, Guantánamo Bay, The Hague, or New York City, he will not provide health insurance for a single American working family.

The capture of Saddam Hussein does nothing to remove any industrial pollution from our air, water, or land. It does not provide clean renewable energy for our economy.

The capture of Saddam Hussein does not make us a freer or safer society. It does not rescind the abomination that is the USA PATRIOT act nor any of its evil successors. It does not terminate the appointment of the Torquemada-channeling John Ashcroft. It does not remove the threat of religious or political extremists who are determined to make a statement by killing innocent people on American soil.

The capture of Saddam Hussein does not close the growing and already enormous gap between the have-alots and the have-almost-nothings in this country.

The capture of Saddam Hussein will not guarantee comfortable retirements for those who have worked productive lives in this country, will not reduce the horrendous debt incurred by the * administration, a debt that will have to be repaid by us, our children, our grandchildren unto many generations -- unless, of course, the whole U.S. economy collapses and we become the Argentina of the North.

The capture of Saddam Hussein does not reconcile the many hostilities within our nation -- ethnic, racial, cultural, religious, political.

The capture of Saddam Hussein does not remove the greatest threat to continued human existence on this planet. That threat is *, aided and abetted by such evilGOPbustards (with apologies to the bustards) as Tom DeLay, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard "the Prince of Darkness" Perle, Big Dick Cheney, and all their vicious minions.

But what do I think I am, some kind of presidential aspirant? or even a political speech-writer?

Ha! In my dreams!

I'm just, for now,

Tansy Gold

some thoughtful responses - it'll be, I think, a measure of the candidates to see their responses and actions for the next week or so. Too bad we can't pull a distraction out of the hat like the BFEE does - Michael Jackson, where are you when we need you?

btw who was struck speechless?

as witness the posts boding disaster. We were unprepared for something like this to happen and unable to envision how the candidates would respond. A number of us also seem convinced that this capture forms a convincing justification for the war, at least in the Rove spin or the minds of the unthinking public. This seems likely, but I doubt it will cause anyone to actually to change their mind - those who thought the war was justified will think their position strengthened; those who did not will fret that everybody's position will change but won't change their own, and those in the middle - I think will likely remain in the muddle. I don't think there'll be enough in the middle to swing an election next fall, though. Incidentally, one response to the remark that "See, if we hadn't gone in there Saddam would still be in power" is the counter that, "No, it's because we went in there that Saddam was in power in the first place. It's because we went in there that King Faisal, by all accounts a decent man who had managed to actually unify the Arab tribes, was overthrown." Probably the second sentence is a bit much, but it's important to make the point that a lot of nasty dictators don't appear out of spontaneous generation.