It's a theme they have been developing since Hillary's win last week. And plugged by Bill Clinton. Ironically, it's not about Barack's opposition to the war. It's about how the Democrats always tend to choose the "establishment" candidate and if they don't, they lose. (Never mind what happened in 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004.)
They are comparing Barack to McCarthy, McGovern, Bradley, and Dean.
Yet somehow, when the GOP goes with the "establishment" candidate, they lose. Nixon in 1960, Ford in 1976, Dole in 1996.
Why isn't it Clinton=Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry?
All except Mondale had a good chance of winning. But Dukakis, Gore,
and Kerry ran horrible campaigns.
Rolling Stone magazine's reporter on Bill Maher's show had it exactly right. We have a situation where a huge majority of the American people are sick of this war. McCain is talking about our being in Iraq for another hundred years. Our highways, hospitals, schools crumble while we try to resurrect what was once the "cradle of civilization".
The value of our currency is steadily down, which is not a good thing. The candidates do not talk so much about this, but it should be a huge issue, and may be revived as the economy gets more attention.
Foreign adventures cost money. This idiotic war in Iraq has caused the dollar to fall in value. That is not a good thing.
And some Dems want to nominate the pro-war candidate? This is "Bush Lite"
all over again. It did not work in 2002 or in 2004. Kerry and Edwards, supposedly talented trial lawyers, could not even explain what Rove called "the gift that kept on giving"--Kerry's vote "for the war". They could not even explain what HRC has at least tried to do--explain that it was not a vote to go to war, just to authorize war as a threat to Iraq if it did not comply with UN mandates.
I'd bet that a majority of American voters do not know that we kicked out UN inspectors in Iraq who were begging for more time to check out WMD. And the "liberal media" failed to ask about just how or why those WMD might be delivered to the U.S., just as they fail to do so today in connection with the alleged threat from Iran.
Could Iran take out some huge U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf? Maybe, based on what we read in the NYT about "war games" conducted about a "Spanish Armada" situtation a few years ago. But if they did something like that, we could obliterate their entire country, so why would they do it?
Now we see Bill Clinton calling Barack's consistent view a "fairy tale"
based on a few statements that Barack made after the war was already going on. The real "fairy tale" is the idea that you can conquer Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan or that you can win a "war on terror".
There will always be "terrorists".
Edwards was on the right track when he called the "war on terror"
a bumper sticker. His problems are clearly in the foreign policy area,
and now those issues may be receding, but he was right about them at one time.
We saw this bad movie in 2002 and 2004 when Democratic candidates were cowed by the war business, even though there was never much suppor for this war before it began, and there is very little support for it now. despite the idiotic media's picking up the claim that the "surge" has worked. Worked to do what? Revive McCain's campaign?