Could being a Pro-War Democrat be back en Vogue?

Since May, most candidates in our field have been trying to follow Dean in appearing Anti-War. However, Lieberman and Edwards have both maintained being Pro-War without much apology. Kerry and Gephardt have waffled on this issue. What I'm wondering is will the trend in our party now be to nominate someone who supports this war? Will the old conventional wisdom that we thought Dean killed, come back to life?

who don't vote for Democrats when they have a perfectly acceptable war-mongering incumbent.

No thanks.

but reality will set in as the 'war' continues, our troops remain in Iraq and their dying and killing continue.

something out of "Lord of the Flies." I just wish the grown-ups would land on their plane (or their mothership?) and rescue us from this mess.

then we'll know at least he thinks it is important to be pro-war again.

Everybody -- and I mean, everybody -- who opposed this war, in this manner, at this time -- thought Saddam Hussein was and is an SOB. And everyone thought it likely that war would lead to his downfall and eventual capture or death.

His capture is great news, but, no, it doesn't change the political dynamic at all.

Let me also reject the theory that Wesley Clark's candidacy is harmed. Clark's candidacy is premised on an overriding concern about foreign policy in November, 2004, and that a former Army General is uniquely equipped to have those debates. The theory goes that Saddam's capture takes one large part of foreign policy off the table, so America will be less concerned about those issues.

I don't buy that theory either, mainly because I disagree with the premise. There will be plenty of foreign policy issues circulating -- and plenty of people equipped to have those debates.

by bushco??? :puke:....NO!!! it was wrong to invade iraq and capturing saddam does NOT make it right nor okay....it is still wrong

Or is someone trying to weigh making another metamorphosis?

The answer is a clear NO. Waffling may be all fine and well for certain candidates but this crowd doesn't waffle. Those of us who got out in the streets didn't just do it because Sadaam was on the loose.

The thinking is a bit too simplistic. The capture of Sadaam leaves even my freeper neighbor curiously cold. Hah! She thought he'd been captured long ago.

Unlike certain politicians, progressive principles don't follow the direction of the wind.

in so far as hawkishness goes. In the 50s (and 60s for that matter) Republican or Democrat, it didn't mattter, to be viewed as "soft" on communism was the political kiss of death.

Fast forward to '04. Republican or Democrat to be viewed as "soft" on terrorism will be the politcal kiss of death. When the pre-convention dust all settles I'm guessing that Bush and whoever we nominate will be do all they can to show themself as the stronger pro-defense/anit-terrorist candidate.

Nodel!

we'll see but I'll have to say that such a one is the only one with a chance against Bush.

our best bet is someone who is not ardently on any one side of the war issue. Or is at least able to follow public opinion on the issue. If this is the beginning of things getting better for Bush in Iraq, Howard Dean's electibility is going into the toilet. If they can string together a run of capturing saddam, decreasing violence, get some stuff going on that looks like a government in IRaq, then Dean is going to be in a very tuff situation.

I think everyone but Dean has the elasticity at this point that they could deal with that eventuality.

and when - that was ridiculous before as a campaign issue - and more evidently now. The Whitey and Whiter show in harlem is so pasee as of today...
I called this last month:
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/20/7034/0480