The country is now antiwar, why should we nominate a hawk?

[Ken Burch]

Clearly, the antiwar position has won the arguement in public opinion. Clearly, the voters also believe this administration is way too far to the right on the issues.

Shouldn't we go with this and nominate a REAL Democrat instead of Hillary(or anyone to her right)?

[marmar]

1. Hillary moves in whichever direction the wind is blowing...

She'll begin her transformation to war-was-a-mistake candidate before you can say 2006.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Hillary is sexist

She thinks that for a woman to appear tough she has to outdo the men in testosterone-induced war cries. Nothing is further from the truth! The reason we are in such a mess in Iraq, and our politicians are reluctant to admit they made a mistake and call to bring the troops home ASAP is because they are MEN. Men will never stop and ask for directions, preferring to wander about trying to find their way. We are lost in Iraq, and we need to stop and ask someone to show us the way home.

[ClassWarrior]

2. I concur with your gist, but why should we nominate ANYONE now?

We have a midterm election to worry about first.

NGU.

[Ken Burch]

9. I'm raising this in response to those who are basically saying

that Hillary already has it sewn up and we should just be quiet and know our place.

The ones who still think it was a good idea to ban antiwar signs at our last convention and to push Kerry to run on as hawkish a position as possible.

That's why this discussion is happening now. Before it becomes too late to matter.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Ignore them and get to work helping us take back the Party.

Most of that kind of babble is meant to distract us. Don't fall into the trap.

NGU.

[Ken Burch]

12. OK.

And, just so you know, this thread was also in the service of the attempt to "take back the Party".

BTW, do you see that effort as something that is separate from presidential politics? If so, what is the field of battle upon which that struggle should be fought instead?

[BootinUp]

3. Just curious

are you in a red state or a blue state?

[Ken Burch]

8. why does THAT matter?

for the record, I'm from Alaska, the northern outpost of Jesusland, so I guess I'm in a state that is red beyond red.

[eallen]

4. Don't confuse opposition to THIS war & president with pacificism.

Those are two things are very different. Terrorism, Islamism, and the risk of autocrats attaining significant nuclear arsenals are still very much in people's minds. A candidate's ability to navigate those waters well, and to deploy military power when needed, will still be a large part of the 2008 election. That doesn't mean a hawk. But it pretty much rules out a dove.

Gad, I hate being the moderate realist on so many fronts.

:hippie:

[Ken Burch]

7. I wasn't calling for pacifism. This country should be defended

if attacked.

But clearly anyone who still supports the Iraq War has pretty much joined the right on all other issues.

Even if they claim otherwise, the expense of continuing the war will make it impossible for a Democratic president to carry out non-Republican domestic policies.

Look at LBJ's term after 1966 for proof of this.

[eallen]

10. Yep. The criticisms still need to be focused.

Look at who this nation elected in '68.

:puke:

[Poppyseedman]

6. I think you are jumping the gun a bit

Clearly, the antiwar position has won the argument in public opinion

I'm not so sure the anti war position has won anything. People may not like the way Bush has handled the war or the way it turning out, but that doesn't necessarily mean people are ready to hand over the reins of power to an dove candidate.

Terrorism is still on the mind of many people national security is a high priority

Anti bush doesn't equal anti war

[DanCa]

13. While I respect Senator Clinton I hope she is not our nominee.

I just don't see us grabbing anymore states than we allready have if she is our elected nominee.