Will the Ghosts of Pro-War Statements Past Haunt the 2008 Campaign?

[kentuck]

Is this going to be another election similar to the one in 2004 where John Kerry said "he voted for it before he voted against it"? And will that neutralize the strongest issue for the Democratic Party if we nominate a candidate that was for the war, and then changed his/her mind? Will that not take our strongest issue off the table? It's something to consider, looking at the recent past, in my opinion.
================================

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/will-the-ghosts-of-prowa_b_40509.html

<snip>
To his credit, Edwards strongly renounced his vote, saying no less than eight times that he was wrong to have helped authorized the president to use military action.

But no amount of contrition could mitigate the effect of Russert playing clips of what Edwards had said about Iraq before everything went south, including this bellicose blast from October 2002:

My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.... Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

So, instead of hammering the president and the GOP for the war, we are facing the grim prospect of candidates like Edwards and Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and especially Hillary Clinton back on their heels, trying to explain and justify their pro-war votes. Hillary has taken so many different positions on the war, her rationalizations are already making "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" sound downright unequivocal.

...more

[bullimiami]

1. for those candidates in the senate i think it will be more about what they do

with their majority power now rather than what they had said or voted in the past.

ie I think there is plenty of time and space for redemption of past mistakes

[AlGore-08.com]

5. Sorry, Arianna Huffington is right about this

The press and the GOP will not hesitate for one second to play videos of the Dem nominee from 2002/3 talking up the invasion and WMD and (if they were stupid enough to do so) praising Smirk for "Mission Accomplished", etc., etc., etc. and contrasting that with the nominee's statements from 2007/8 where they oppose the war. You won't need the GOP to wave flip-flops at their convention for most voters to get turned off by this.

What if the GOP nominee is somebody like Guiliani or Romney who didn't vote for the war - - who can be "pragmatic" about it without having to apologize for being part of the disastrous decision to invade Iraq in the first place? A GOPer who was not in Congress or the Smirk admin will look a hell of a lot more Presidential just because they won't be followed constantly by videos of them saying "I'm voting for the IWR today because it's the best idea ever" spliced up against "I shouldn't have voted for the IWR because it was the worst idea ever".

Even if you're right, that it's more important what the Dems do with their majority power now (a distinction too subtle for most voters), what have the Dems done with their majority power about Iraq? So far they have failed to even get the Senate to debate the troop surge. There is a significant portion of the Dem party who (at least appear to) believe that it's unconstitutional for Congress to defund the war. So there is a real possibility that we will get to the fall of 2008 with nothing different in Iraq except a greater loss of life, and possibly a civil war.

[bullimiami]

9. the reality is, without enough votes to override a presidential veto, the congress

can do very little legislation wise. it will be all posture but no power.

the power they do have is controlling any and all new money. we will see what they do.

[rocktivity]

2. Whose statements--the Dems or the Repubs?

rocknation

[AlGore-08.com]

7. Dems. The press will give the GOPers an easier time over their votes

And the GOPers have a better excuse - - Smirk is from their party. In the minds of way too many voters, that makes it more reasonable that the GOPers in Congress went along with Smirk; but Dems, being in opposition, should have been more skeptical.

It's already happening with the press.

[KingofNewOrleans]

3. Aside from the Bush-McCain-Lieberman posse

everyone else seems to have moved on to getting us out of Iraq. I think what most Americans are looking for is a somebody who gets us out and then moves the the country forward with a sane agenda.

[Apollo11]

4. Yes - if Dems nominate Hillary or Edwards

then you can be sure the Republican machine will accuse her or him of flip-flopping - or even outright hypocrisy and changing their positions to get thru the Dem primaries.

You can imagine the negative TV adds with excerpts from opposite statements on Iraq.

That's why there is still room in this race for candidates who are on record as criticising the Bu$h-Cheney policy back in 2002. I am thinking in particular of Al Gore, Wes Clark and Barack Obama.


Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :)
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com - Sign the petition! :)
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

:kick:

[OHdem10]

6. The War Theme--yes but

More along the lines of "Which of these candidates can
you depend on to act quickly and decisively in the event
of attack here at home?" George Will, a more rataional
Republican set this up yesterday in an article "Making
the Case for Guilianni." This a subltle attack on Hillary
considered cautious, Edwards, and OBama.
The Republicans can ask the same question and this will
be part of their final blast whether it is McCain or
Guillani.

Democrats would be very smart to be planning on how to
defeat McCain or Guilanni.

Keep in mind the Republican Base is a different animal
than the Democratic Base. Baggage does not matter if
candidate is Republican. I keep harping. Arnold S is
Pro Choice, Pro Gay Marriage and had enough dirt
dug up about him(made Bill Clinton look like a choir
boy). When they decided winning was more important
the Religious Right put down their crosses and marched
into voting booth and put Arnold in as Governator. Tobe
fair Arnold did win his re-election bid by taking a
real left turn in the way he governs.

My point is Do Not Underestimate Rudy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. You know, I think we in the internets really DO know more than the

politicians.

It makes sense. We are constantly reading, browsing, perusing pro and con sites to figure out what the truth is, and for the most part, we get it right.

How much time does a politician like Edward have to really graze these pastures? It is just possible he really WAS fooled by the administration because he has time to glance through a newspaper in the morning before heading out for meetings, conferences, strategy planning sessions, and fundraising, fundraising, fundraising.

On the assumption that the vast majority of politicians outside Bushco are really interested in promoting peace and prosperity for Americans, it is disheartening to realize that the system they have settled into promotes ignorance and inaccuracy.