POLJUNK

You called my disdain of Lamont's victory elitist, and it is definitely that--unapologetically so.

I would also agree with you that Lamont's victory made a powerful statement and the GOP is in a tizzy, precisely because they realize their joyride on Rove-ian rhetoric is over.

I think an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be irresponsible, But I also know that message is going to play better the longer this conflict drags out. Military families are fatigued and that will influence conservative voters. The Bushies are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they pull out now and Iraq goes to hell, what can they say they've truly accomplished? "Getting rid of Saddam" doesn't fly anymore. We're far enough away from Sept.11 that a Rove-type can't make specious comparisons.

I wonder how popular Ann Coulter is these days?

If the democrats can come up with a responsible goal for withdrawal, if it can articulate a message of "We don't want to take over the Middle East!" and if it can draw real support from an international community alienated by Bush's blunderings, how could they possibly fail?

I mean besides running Hillary?

There are FEW people calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Plenty are asking for a phased withdrawal with set timelines or milestones, which is the only way any task is completed. Don't buy into the "cut and run" rhetoric.

And yes, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, which is exactly what people (including Powell and his old man) warned against. We have a moral and legal obligation to Iraq now. Funny how the supposed experts in the administration got EVERY aspect of this war wrong and not one has been fired.

And I don't buy the whole "well, we're there. No sense complaining now..." horseshit. It makes all the sense in the world to complain about how and why we got into this and at whose hands. Americans should never forget whose fault this is and whose idealogy brought us to such a disaster. For all the talk of communism as a failed idealogy I sure as fuck hope we see neo-conservatism right next to it in the history books.

Of course I don't buy into "cut and run" rhetoric. However I do buy into its power to sway an election. That's why I emphasize focus on having a "goal" and not just saying "Bush fucked us."

Of course the "goal" should be get the fuck out of there with some Saddam-alike clamping down and refrain from whacking any more hornet's nests for God's sake. That's realism, but it has to be sold with a heaping helping of "saving face" or it won't fly with those folks with the ribbon magnets. (Mind you, you can win without those people but the victory will be short-lived).

So forgive me for being underwhelmed by the anti-war populism. Are my views so much different from say Howard Dean's? No. I voted for Gore and Kerry. Either would have made a decent prez. But Bush is a two-term president. How the fuck did that happen? Whatever it was needs to be corrected. When do republicans ever really LOSE? When their taxes go up or something? So how do you beat a group of people who never really lose? Sure I'd like to think it's by holding up the truth and beating them up with that. I just don't see it playing in Peoria, at least not yet.

I don't have an answer. On the one hand, you've got the U.S. looking damn near like imperial wannabes. That is evil, to me. On the other hand there are legitimate threats to peace and order that aren't necessarily going away even if we turn into isolationists. So while I'm skeptical of the neoconservative ideal of a benevolent American hegemon, I'm also skeptical of the leadership of the international community to address such problems. I'd like to see a democrat who represents that point of view to where it doesn't sound like a default endorsement of the UN.

I hear ya, but the difference today is the majority now believes this war is horseshit and so are the buffoon who brought us there.