Winning the Peace
Sep 25th, 2005 at 8:57 am by Susie
John Nichols in the Nation:
No matter what happens in 2006, the debate over Iraq is likely to dominate the fast-starting 2008 Democratic presidential race. The jockeying for the nomination has already begun, with potential Democratic candidates visiting the Iowa and New Hampshire precincts that will play a definitive role in identifying the party’s next nominee–and its direction. Even if an outspoken antiwar candidate does not prevail in those first contests, the early and persistent presence of a genuine foe of the Bush Administration’s approach to national security issues could prod not just the party but all the machinery of modern American politics–the media, the fundraising establishment and Congress itself–to get more serious about the questions of when and how the United States should pull itself out of the quagmire in Iraq.
Hart, who pondered making an antiwar run for the presidency in 2004 but disavows interest in doing so in 2008, says that the failure of party leaders to advance a logical exit strategy has created an opening for an antiwar presidential candidate–”or, at the least, someone who says, I may or may not be running for President but I am definitely running for the leadership of my party on the most critical issue of the day.” Hart argues that “if someone were to step up right now with a plan to get out of Iraq that makes sense, and heads to Iowa and New Hampshire with that message, they would be overwhelmed with support.” [...]
The “right message” won’t simply be a purely antiwar one. After eight years of Bush, there must also be a call for national renewal, beginning with restoration of the federal government as a functional force for good. But as the 2002 and 2004 elections demonstrated, domestic policy messages can be all too easily drowned out when the Republicans start banging war drums. Democrats will have to respond by showing how getting US troops out of Iraq fits into a broader agenda that will make Americans more secure, and maybe even well liked, in a turbulent world. Link that message to a realistic discussion of what the price tag of an open-ended “war on terror” does to prospects for addressing domestic problems–not just in New Orleans but everywhere in the country–and Democrats could well produce an antiwar message powerful enough to renew a party that has been on the ropes for the better part of a decade.
And if they don’t, it’s truly, finally over for the Democrats and time to get serious about a third party. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I won’t vote for her. I won’t vote for any presidential candidate who backs this illegal and immoral war.
I agree about H Clinton..she is far to DLC for me…
Its already over for the Democrats. There will be no antiwar candidate, only a candidate who says that we have to stay in Iraq and “fullfill our obligations”.
Don’t forget that last month the democrats said they weren’t going to fight the Roberts nomination because he wasn’t nominated to be chief justice. Now they say they aren’t going to fight Roberts because he IS nominated to be chief justice. The real reason? Because Roberts represents the interests of corporate america, and BOTH parties are run by that interest.
Yep. If the Dems run another pro-war candidate, I am done with them for good, and I say this as a fairly partisan Democrat.
“If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I won’t vote for her.”
Sure you will.
I’ll grit my teeth doing it, and so will you, if it comes to that. I hope it doesn’t. But if it does, I’ll remember what some people taking their ‘principled stance’ cost us all in 2000, and vote for the lesser of two evils.
So will you. So cut the bullshit.