The Nation has drawn a line in the sand. In no uncertain terms the editors have spelled out their position on supporting Democrats running for national office. Simply put:
The Nation ... takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position.
Sounds good to me. Anyone else?
More.
Despite the magazine's sometimes overly-academic tone (and the fact that they continued publishing Christopher Hitchens long after he descended into his neo-con madness), The Nation's editorials have been some of the most articulate arguments against the Iraq War and the Bush regime. Their October 2002 "open-letter" editorial to members of Congress urging them to vote against giving Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq was the most distilled, passionate anti-war rationale that I have read.
The new piece, which appears in this week's edition, seems to bookmark the 2002 editorial, and begins with:
Everything that needs to be known is now known: The reasons the Bush Administration gave for the American war in Iraq were all falsehoods or deceptions, and every day the US occupation continues deepens the very problems it was supposed to solve. Therefore there can no longer be any doubt: The war--an unprovoked, unnecessary and unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style occupation--is a moral and political catastrophe. As such it is a growing stain on the honor of every American who acquiesces, actively or passively, in its conduct and continuation.
Who can argue with that?
I'm ready to make the pledge the Nation's editors suggest: I will not support nor vote for any candidate running for national office who has not said, "It is time to leave Iraq. Here's my plan."
There's been much discussion and straw-polling about '08 Democratic contenders for the nomination, both in this community and elsewhere. But, isn't it true that of those who are likely candidates none have called for an exit from Iraq? Haven't many actually echoed Bush's fantasyland "stay the course" rhetoric?
The critical mass needs to happen now. It seems to me that the longer any Democrat considering an '08 run waits to echo the sentiment of the majority of their own party, the harder it will be to differentiate themselves on this critcal issue from whoever is nominated on the Republican side.
After all, how can one effectively promote themselves as a leader if they have an extensive history of following?