Any predictions re: which candidate(s) get hurt by this are premature.

First of all, the discussion is moot. This is a propaganda coup that is worth more than ten thousand carrier landings and twelve dozen surprise Thanksgiving visits. This Hussein capture helps one person politically, and one person only: George W. Bush. Spend ten minutes in front of your television, tuned to CNNMSNBCFOXCBSABCNBC, and you'll know this for a truth.

Second of all, there is still over a month to go before the primaries. The true impact of this capture won't be felt for a week. If a bunch more stuff blows up in Iraq between now and then, and more troops get killed (damn you Bush), everyone in the administration and on the TV who got all breathless over this is going to look pretty dumb.

How this will impact the candidates politically will also be sussed out on the next week. Predicting how the next week will go, and thus predicting which candidates will find themselves in a hole, is impossible.

As far as I've been able to tell, they haven't been using this against each other in their statements...well, except for Joe "Howard Loves Saddam" Lieberman, but no surprise there.

. . .makes them more attractive?

:)

There is no way to tell. If guys like Kerry or Gephart look more 'shiny' in the media because of their previous support today, that shine will turn to tarnish if something blows up tomorrow.

This could backfire. It's obvious that Saddam wasn't leading the resistance. We still don't know or won't admit publically who is leading the resisitance.

Kerry is the only person getting attacked for his IWR vote. How do you criticize that now? I know that what happened today isn't directly relevant to IWR vote. However, it would be unwise to continue to harp on it now that this has happened. Like I said in another thread, this Iraq invasion has a two-pronged rationale -- one is to get out SH, and the other is to further American imperialism. Today's events will focus on the former rather than the latter for a while, and there's now a patina over the even which makes it harder to criticize.

Nobody, I suspect, will want to separtate themselves from mainstream American sentiment by attacking Kerry's vote. Since the others weren't really getting kicked around on this issue as much as Kerry, they stand to gain less from the inevitable cessation of the attacks.

Hopefully, people will start talking about where we go from here. And, in that case, the people who voted against and spoke clearly against the 87 bil handout will get a leg up.

Well, if I were to take the devil's advocate position, I'd say that capturing Hussein has not legitimized this farce in any way, has not revealed any WMDs, has not made us safer, but in fact put us in more danger because this was essentially a multi-billion-dollar recruiting advertisement for al Qaeda, while getting 455 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, and isolated us from the rest of the planet in the bargain.

Gephart worked very hard to bring this to pass, and Kerry voted for it.

Anyway, that's what I'd say if I were playing devil's advocate. :)

Kerry was really attacked for it. The other candidates have gone up since the IWR vote (or have gone down for completely unrelated reasons). Kerry has gone down largely because of the portrayal that he has waffled on this issue.

The IWR vote alone didn't define Kerry. They way the media and Dean harped on it defined Kerry.


Now that anti-war people won't want to bring up the IWR vote as a negative for Kerry (and a positive for themselves) for a couple weeks, Kerry can stop worrying about people using it to hate him.

I could be wrong. It's just a feeling. It might be based on DU more than on reality.

that is why he was 'hurt' by it.

peace

However, I totally believe that there's nothing inconsistent in the way Kerry has comported himself with relationg ot IWR and the whole Iraq situation. However, the people who needed to knock him down used this issue to do it pretty effectively.

Now that this issue will be removed from the quiver for a little while, it will be interesting to see if Kerry's able to climb back up the parapet and gain a dominant position.

Only Wes Clark will be taken seriously on issues pertaining to national security within the Democratic field. Howard Dean may be right, but the way things are playing out now, it seems as if he will constantly be playing defense, no offense. Clark opposed the war, but not strenuously. He made ambiguous statements about the war, yes, but questioning his consistency on the war would be a lot tougher than it would be on an ordinary politician like Kerry, Edwards or Gephardt. His military background gives him maneuverability that the other candidates simply do not have.

Clark opposed the war quite strenuously, but not in a whiny manner. And since the war has begun, he has still opposed it, but he, more than anyone else, has focused on the fact that now we are there, we need a plan to move forward and succeed, despite its wrongness--because, given that we broke Iraq and caused so much suffering, it would be even more wrong to pull out without reconstructing it. It is this positive vision that makes Clark the best candidate.

There is just no telling, except that it is good for Bush* today.

Next week? Who knows? It just depends on the actual results on the ground.

Many candidates have prepared well for this shift in the political landscape and are running on more than one issue. Who benefits? We will soon see.

In my opinion, nothing about capturing Saddam makes this war a better idea or more legal. It will make it seem more successful for at least a time.

All this pseudo-patriotic gushing will be short-lived.

What happens if there is an attack upon our troops and maybe a dozen are killed? People will start asking, "Why are our troops still there?" Didn't we capture Saddam? Isn't it time to pull our troops out? This could impact Bush moreso than any Democrat, in my opinion. So it is too early to say how this will impact one candidate or other.

(punctuation)

here ;) I imagine those that said Howard was 'pro iraq war' will have to admit now (in simple terms) that he was not. The differences will become clear once again...

I agree with your sentiment here Will, it's far to early to tell. There have been major explosions in Bagdhad already today.

The event JUST HAPPENED, and making predictions on who will come out on top is like popping a balloon and betting on where the pieces will fall. It's impossible to tell right now, and anybody who says, "Well, Dean is fished," or whatever, needs to relax a bit.

As you know, GD is the home of the premature... postulation. :-)

Does one good result justify an invasion of a country which posed no threat to us and was based on lies?

I guess the American people will decide.

what happens in Iraq is the big key.

I agree with you, this is just a propaganda party for Bush. There are still uncertain variables that can come into play. My support for Dean has not wavered because of Saddam being captured, because I never bought the Bush Admin's bullshit about Saddam being a danger to us.

This really changes nothing, or not much long term. Short term it is liable to bump shrubs numbers but it does all depend on if it changes anything on the ground and I have serious doubts that it will. Frankly, I don't see the big deal. I realize that many are rejoicing at the capture of a cruel tyrant but I think it will have little effect.

I am so torn. I cannot root for more deaths but, IMHO, if for some reason this does stabilize Iraq, the boy king becomes a hero, troops can be pulled from Iraq and readied for Syria or Iran and the PNAC neverending war becomes a reality, sweeping the idiot back into office as a wartime prez for further adventures abroad. The best chance to stop them is for things to continue badly in Iraq until the public demands changes, either by their hue and cry or at the polls. Sad to say but the lesser of two evils methinks.

...Hussein's capture won't hurt any of the Democratic nominees -- unless they say something stupid in reaction to it. That rush will be long gone within a month (probably much less than that).

Remember, Hussein was supposed to have been assassinated by missile the first night of the war. They've finally 'cleaned up' after that early intel screw up. Would Hussein's assassination back in March have changed the situation today to a great extent? I doubt it.

All that Hussein getting captured does politically is remove one of the numerous things that Bush can be faulted for. I don't think that any of the candidates were counting on being able to use that against Bush. There are dozens of other things Bush can be faulted for of far more significance that still exist.

Is that it took the Gore endorsement right out of the news.

Sic semper 24-hour news cycle.