Whatever happened to “will their antiwar stance hurt the Democrats?”
The article is by Richard Wolffe.
Matt Dowd knows more about the politics of war than almost anyone who has worked inside Bush’s inner circle. The president’s long-time pollster was the chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney campaign three years ago, when he helped frame the conflict in Iraq as a winning issue for his boss. But as Dowd surveys the field of 2008 presidential candidates, he’s puzzled. “The American people have decided what they think about the war and are ready to look to the next stage,” he says. “What I don’t understand is why the big three GOP candidates have all chosen to follow the president’s approach rather than offer up their own alternative.”
Heh. Whatever happened to “the Dems aren’t offering an alternative”?
“The Baggage They Carry” – looks like an anvil to me. I’m eager to see how Hagel evolves (I don’t know if he’s officially running, yet). He could give some of the more tepid (HRC) on our side a good run.
What’s worse for them (thinking like a strategist) is that they will not be able to back away from the stance they took on the surge and the war, even 18 months from now, without being accused of being indecisive, or myopic, when the rest of the country sees the war so clearly as a looser. If the war continues to deteriorate, the only person who can save their reputation(s) is King George and only if George pulls the troops out and admits his strategy failed.
Anybody believe that will happen?