Over at TPMCafe.com, David Gelber (
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/12/21543/3239) has an interesting entry about the potential similarity between the infamous Chicago Democratic convention of 1968 and the upcoming convention in 2008. The main question of course, revolves around whether a serious candidate will emerge running on a platform of withdrawal from Iraq.
Of course, it is extremely early and events on the ground will likely alter many times over the possibilities in that country. Still, I don't think and of us would be hard pressed to imagine Iraq pretty much remaining the way it is now, 2.5 years down the line. I think its pretty clear where some candidates will stand on the issue, but there may be room for a peace wing in the party after all.
More Below the fold:
I think its first a good idea to look at the election of 2004. Of the many candidates, who remained once the primaries really began, three were clearly against the War in Iraq: Sharpton, Kucinich and Dean. (I know that Dean was for Biden/Lugar, but he clearly eventually ran as the anti war candidate). Now, neither of the other 2 were able to translate this opposition into a legitimate campaign. I think its pretty clear that for someone to run on a "crazy" "extreme" or "radical" idea, s/he must have some conventional creditentials in order to be taken seriously.
So who do we have in 2008?
Clinton
Kerry
Edwards
Biden
Bayh
Feingold
Warner
Richardson
Vilsack
(Obama) - I'm tempted to exclude him because he has essentially ruled out a 2008 run, but I think it just might be too tempting.
Looking at the list (w/o Obama), its clear that most of the candidates would run a traditional campaign. Stay the course in Iraq, lets finish the job, and nothing too radical. The only potential peace wing candidates appears to be Feingold.
Granted, a million other people can and may emerge seeking to garner the peace vote, but it appears the media wont even give them a chance because they will simply be left wing kooks. So, it requires a person who is already in power, a Senator to take up the role of crusading reformer.
Just imagine, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wi) running on a platform of withdrawal. Progressive populist against conventional Democrats. Sound familar? Only this time, 54% of Americans think the war wasnt worth it. Only this time over 1700 soldiers have paid the price. This time, it may be sucessful.
So will Russ do it? I hope so. He has displayed such independence before with his SOLE vote against the Patriot Act. From that, he should have learned that you can get rewarded when you stand up for your beliefs. With that, Feingold is consistently polling around 2-3% for the 2008 race today. He can run as a non-partisan reformer seeking campaign finance reform, fair (not just free) trade (since he voted against NAFTA, FTAA and everything else free trade you can think of), and as a candidate for brining the troops back home. He can ride that wave to the presidency.
As for Obama, I think he's genuine in his desire to serve the citizens of Illinois. But, i think a Feingold/Obama anti war ticket could just be our ticket back to the White House. So what do you think? Can a withdrawal platform suceed? Will Russ do it?
(In the interest of full disclosure, I do blog on http://www.RussForPresident.com but I genuinely believe in what I say)