In yesterday’s VLog, I captured what I think is the essence of the problems the Democrats face as the reality of governing and having to make decisions sets in. It is one thing to rail against some issue, in today’s case, the war, without having to provide a solution. If you can accept the reality of the new world war with Islamofascism, and the fact that whether we stay in Iraq or leave, they will follow us, then you understand something must be done about it. I don’t grant that many Democrats have had that much deep thought on the issue, however. I believe their dilemma is caused by the chance that enough Americans have, and if they actually stop and think about what the Democrats are advocating: defeat, they will vote them out at the next election.
.
Dem Cong. Paul Hodes. Will he take heat from both sides?
.
I’m not alone in my observation of the internal turmoils looming within the Democratic Party over the issue of the war. The April 12th National Journal’s Hotline Blogometer had this to report:
DEM FIELD: They Have Their Work Cut Out For Them
Netroots leaders are using the MoveOn.org Iraq forum as launching pad to "Stop[] the Obama/Edwards/Clinton Charade on Iraq." MyDD’s Matt Stoller elaborates:
Of the top-tier candidates, only Edwards is close to articulating a real policy on Iraq, but it’s clear from his lunatic statements on Iran that he is in the thrall of the national security state. … Obama still uses the war on terror frame and on the Moveon call venerated Reagan’s approach to diplomacy. That’s pathetic … To Edwards, Obama, and Clinton supporters who let their candidates get away with this, you are letting this happen with your silence and enabling. Stop it. It’s your responsibility to stop it.Fellow MyDDer Chris Bowers voices a very similar message: "I believe that those who wish to lead the Democratic Party are obligated to be truthful with our activists about how large they expect the continued American military presence in Iraq to be if they were to become President. Will their residual forces require 10,000, 30,000 or 75,000 troops? What will those troops be doing, and how long will they be doing it? It is equally an obligation of progressive activists to find out the details of these plans, and be truthful with each other when discussing what each candidate actually means by withdrawal and ending the war in Iraq."
First noting that recent polling shows just as many Americans support removing "most" troops as support removing "all" troops, Bowers urges netrooters not to let "progressive policy elites staffing think tanks, congress, and presidential campaigns" get away with proposing merely a reduction in US involvement in Iraq when they should be ending it. Bowers on why bloggers are part of the problem: "Because we like Edwards or Obama, we have no problem letting them slide on this contradiction, which makes it impossible for us to credibly call out candidates like Hillary Clinton on the contradiction."
Now, I disagree with their notion that a majority of Americans, once they understand the scope of the problem, would support anything less than victory.