Was it ever possible to elect a nominee that was against war?

[tobius]

It looks like the nomination is Kerry's to lose, but some still hold out hope that Edwards can pull off a great comeback.

As the primaries proceeded many latched on to the slightest indication that the candidates didn't support military removal of Saddam. Now that it is more clear who the nom will be, the revelation is sinking in that both Kerry and Edwards are quibbling with Bush about process not ultimate military intervention. Only candidates who were extreme long shots came right out and called bush a liar.

Whatever the feelings of members of DU about Iraq, would a Dem nominee have a shot at election with voters of this country if he was against ultimately using military force for Saddam's ouster?

[democratreformed]

1. I have my doubts.

It certainly seems those of us opposed to the action are in the minority.

[Guaranteed]

4. LOL isn't that funny?

All these folks defending Kerry now were SOOOO pissed at him a year and a half ago.

They're against the war then, but they're FOR it now. Shouldn't things be moving in the OPPOSITE direction, especially with Democrats gaining power again?

Do these people realize what they're doing? They're justifying Bush's war.

[For PaisAn]

9. You're right

and of course, it's NOT funny. Guess they don't realize.

[lovedems]

10. I am not justifying bush's war at all.

I am trying to prevent bush from having free reign to pre-emptively invade any country he feels like. As much as I hate the situation in Iraq, I hate the thought of future wars more.

So you can laugh all you want but I don't think a future in a perpetual state of war is funny at all. My kids will draftable before I know it and that isn't funny to me at all.

[Guaranteed]

23. *I* am STILL draftable. nt

[Deaner1971]

11. Didn't realize that I was justifying Bush's war

Sen. Kerry's speech about why he was voting for the resolution was specific and intelligent. Our Congress made the mistake as a group, except DK and a "fair play" to him for having done so.

However, there is a difference between voting for hostilities when being told that a leader has WMDs and that the president will work with the UN and will seek a coalition versus voting for what ended up happening.

I don't believe, for a second, that any Dems and few Repubs would have voted for a war with Iraq if they were being told, "Yeah, he has no WMDs, it will be just us and the Brits, I am giving all the contracts to Dicky's old company, and I am basing this on what I want to see in the data". John Kerry got mislead by this administration, as did Congress, as did many Americans. Everyone claims, "Oh, I didn't. I knew it was all a lie," but the poll numbers immediately after Iraq surrendered tell another story. Most of this country supported that idiot from Crawford and his friggin' war.

Ironically, had the Congress not given the President the power to go to war, and had we not invaded Iraq, much of the country never would have known what a big liar Bushy 2 is...

[DjTj]

25. I am for Edwards.

but I am one of these people. The object of my anger was Dianne Feinstein, since she was my Senator, but I definitely still believe the Senate Democrats (including Kerry and Edwards) severely let us down in the fall of 2002.

I'm not sure what you mean by *justifying* Bush's war, but I'm simply not interested in moral retribution anymore.

We are so very lucky that in November 2004 we have an opportunity to remove Bush from the White House, and I am going to do everything I can to make that happen. I feel that is the strongest statement I can make against Bush's war.

I am still against the war, but I am more concerned about the future: How can we win back the White House? How can we get ourselves out of Iraq? How can we regain the respect of the UN and the rest of the world?

I support Edwards because I believe he has the best chance of actually making these things a reality. (I also like him best on several domestic policy issues.)

[atre]

21. I disagree

Those of us opposed to the action are in the majority when you add in those hindsight converts. The problem was that even us hardcore caucus-goers didn't base our caucus or primary votes on that issue.

[revcarol]

2. We have forgotten the valiant Senator Byrd

who BEGGED Senators not to trash the Constitution.

We have forgotten that we were among the millions protesting the war.

We have forgotten that many of us signed the pledge not to vote for anyone who voted for war.

Now the only action left to many is to vote for Kucinich as a protest vote against our non-leaders and to contribute to his campaign.

It makes me want to cry.

Maybe we can get our candidates to listen to us if we turn out in the MILLIONS on Mar. 20. But I am not hopeful.:argh:

[tobius]

22. The ABB faction was stronger than anti-IWR faction.

and I am truly puzzled. It seems it ended up SOLD-- some one like dubya.


late night kick

[BruinAlum]

3. I don't believe those candidates were rejected over that one issue

The majority of voting Democrats are not using the IWR as a litmus test for their choice of candidate. Nor do the majority of the public blame the Iraq war on the Senators who voted for the IWR like some people here in GD 04 do - they place the blame on Bush where any reasonable person knows it belongs.

The Iraq war is not even the priority in most Americans minds. Voters are MOSTLY concerned with replacing Bush - they are angry as hell with him and want him gone. They are more concerned with domestic issues. JOBS!! Deficit. Civil liberties.

They are not single issue voters for the most part. Your candidate did not lose out just because he was against the Iraq war.

[MrBenchley]

5. More to the point

Millions of moderate America were also misled by pResident Turd and his chickenhawk brigade...a candidate whose message is "Nyah, Nyah told you so" is not likely to draw much support.

And whether or not we have kicked over the anthill, the fact remains that this unelected drunk DID kick it over and NOW we've got ants...and we have to deal with that...not with what should have been said in February 2003.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. no - the war is about oil, and oil production is peaking

simple really.

[For PaisAn]

7. Yes

they would have had a great shot at the nomination. If not for the media & if not for the DNC. But those if not's don't exist and we're left with Kerry & Edwards. It's a sad situation.

[JVS]

8. Maybe this war is really popular

We got a whole country and a bunch of oil for less than 1000 killed. I could see people being happy with that.

[Maat]

12. I just wanted to say, 'I agree.'

I loved the progressive messages of Clark and Dean. I still love to listen to Kucinich, but the mainstream media largely ignores him. Before the war, when I was in law class, I repeatedly protested this administration's steadfast determination to go to war in Iraq, that you could just feel in the air. I was told to leave the USA. I went nuts, and told my fellow students that vigorous and robust debate re government policy was the cornerstone of the USA's success...they needed to re-read their ConLaw cases.

[oldcoot]

19. I am glad that you stood up to them

It is frustrating to deal with people who accuse you of being "unpatriotic" for daring to disagree with the government. If you oppose the war, you must hate the U.S. or the troops according to their twisted logic. Indeed, one of the tragedies of this war is how war supporters were able to paint themselves as "supporting the troops." If they really supported the troops, they would have actually done a little bit of research into the first Gulf War to see what sort of dangers that the soldiers might face. Instead, they decided to spend all their time screaming at us to "leave the country."

[GodHelpUsAll2]

13. You may be on to something

[wuushew]

15. People are never outraged for purely idealogical reasons

Drops in support for the Korean war and Vietnam war were correlated to the rate of casualities sustained. Rereading various case studies by RAND it is clear that noticeable drops in support would only occur if causalites were higher by an order of magnitude.

You can see this effect on a microlevel when a large helicopter goes down. For some reason a sudden peak in deaths is worse than then the same amount over a longer period? With something like 70% of public still supporting an illegal occupation of a foreign country it is simply not pragmatic to go against the grain.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/sum00/hyde.htm

[JVS]

18. The Iraq casualties are very small

We could handle ten of these wars before people started to get mad.

[revcarol]

16. Maybe people don't realize that we got NO oil

and a $127 BILLION bill so far with more expense to come.

Do the voters not realize that the whole economy will be in shreds before we get out?

And could we have foreseen this to select an anti-war candidate? Yes.I, one lone unqualified civilian, out in the middle of no place, wrote LTTE's about what was going to happen in the OCCUPATION, including the financial devastation that would result from long occupation. I guess people just like to have other people's lives decimated and only think about that when it is their life.:puke:

[JVS]

17. But we own that country now!

[Snivi Yllom]

14. your question says a lot about the party

And it's not very pleasant to face.

[tobius]

20. I think it also relates to the reason

this forum was started, which I believe was a reaction to election mess in 2000. Would the party nominate someone who would run against "selection", BBV,and media power in elections? If neither question can be answered affirmatively, what does that mean?

[NightNurse]

24. Of Course! Trippi Blew it!

Couldn't Even pay a Deli Bill in Ames,Iowa..he was so greedy!

Engage!:nuke: