POLL: Did lack of a position on VIETNAM hurt Dems? Could it with IRAQ???

[Selatius]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/As_Iraq_votes_liberal_historian_looks_1215.html

As Iraq votes, historian, iconoclast looks to Vietnam; Says lack of position cost Democrats in 1968

...

Raw Story: If you were a Democratic member of Congress and involved in shaping the party's plan and statements with regard to the Iraq conflict, what would you tell your colleagues? What would you tell the country?

Zinn: If I were Nancy Pelosi I would certainly say to my fellow Democrats, "If we want to win the next election we better get with the American people, they're way ahead of us. The American people are forthrightly against the war and we're forthrightly about ." The American people are much more bold and forthright. If I were any Democratic leader, if I were Howard Dean - who unfortunately has been the kind of silent head of the Democratic National Committee - I would say to my fellow Democrats, wake up. If you don't give the American people what the American people want, then you are going to go down in history as a party that loses and loses and loses.

Raw Story: How do the Democratic positions compare now to their positions during Vietnam?

Zinn: Certainly when the elections were taking place in 1967, the Democratic Party still had not taken a position against the war. Only by 1968 when the election was coming up did we have an anti-war candidate. Johnson was out of the race because in fact he recognized that he somehow was missing history. Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy understood by 1968 that the war was wrong and furthermore that the American people knew the war was wrong. And so they at least provided some leadership to the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, neither of them made it and the Democratic Party devolved into the hands of Hubert Humphrey who had been a supporter of the war, and Humphrey lost narrowly to Nixon... similar to the 2004 election because Humphrey did not give a clear support for what the American people wanted, which was to get out of Vietnam.

...

What do you people think? Do you think he is totally accurate here? Or do you think he is completely wrong? (Please read the whole article if possible) Speak your piece! I'm especially interested on hearing from people who lived through or even fought in Vietnam and are now living through this war.

[DanCa]

1. The Dems need to take a hard line pull out stance

It may not be popular but being right is not about being popular. I ask again if the election was sucessful what the frack are we still doing there.
I want answers george and I want them now.

[mike_c]

2. the very fact that this poll exists demonstrates the extent...

...that the war against Iraq is fragmenting the democratic party. The vast majority of democratic voters are solidly opposed to the war and the occupation. Unless the party gets behind the voters, it will be 1968 all over again.

[skipos]

4. Yes, but do most Americans support immediate, unconditional withdrawl?

I have not seen evidence of that. I know that most DUers want us out of there tomorrow, but I do not think most Americans want us out of there tomorrow. It is obvious that most Amercians think the war was a mistake, think it is being handled poorly, and want us out of there soon.

[mike_c]

6. a majority of DEMOCRATS oppose the war....

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1050

The survey showed the war in Iraq is far and away the most important issue to voters. A majority of Democrats (60%) say they “strongly oppose” it, as do 41% of union households and 40% of those households containing a member of the military.

“President Bush wanted his presidency to be all about the war in Iraq, and that’s exactly what it is,” Mr. Zogby said.

Asked if the war was worth it, the nation is badly split. While 78% of Democrats said “no,” 54% of independents said “no,” but just 14% of Republicans said it was not.

[pocoloco]

3. USE IT OR LOSE IT

Run with the opposition to the war, opinions can change, we've got a short attention span!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. "Playing it safe" got the Dems where they are now.

A minority in the congress, distrust of the American people, and a nincompoop infesting the White House. They might consider actually standing for something other than being "not as bad" for a change.

[rocktivity]

7. What Zinn is saying is the reason why the Dems won on the Schiavo case.

Whether through reasoned poll analysis or dumb luck, the Dems noticed that 80% of the country was against the government interfering in Shiavo case. They "got with the American people" and "gave them what they wanted" by announcing that the government should not be involved in making private medical decisions, and proceed to do just that. With no Dems to demonize, the Repubs and the media were forced to mortify independents and moderates by focusing on the freeper Jesus-freak show that was going on outside Terri Schiavo's hospice. And it's been downhill for the Repubs ever since.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Selatius]

8. Bump...

Seems a lot of people are disagreeing vehemently with Zinn, but nobody seems to be offering reasons why. All I'm seeing is generally positive attitudes toward Zinn's words.

[Selatius]

9. Bump...

[Selatius]

10. Bump... n/t

[Hyernel]

11. The lack of a loud national position on Iraq frees red state dems...

...to tailor their positions to their own local situations.

The anti war position can be softened and delivered in a more effective way by the individual congresscritter (and candidates) to their respective constituencies. When Howard Dean defines a "blue state tailored" anti-war position on the national stage, it can really muck up the works of some Democratic candidate that needs to run in Oklahoma or Utah, who needs to pattern themselves after a Murtha, or even a Democratic McCain or Hagel.

IMHO

[Hyernel]

12. Ooooo! I hit 400 posts with that one!

Me so happy!