All our candidates would make great presidents, but I support a non-IWR-supporter first

[CTLawGuy]

My opinion is less about punishing people for voting for IWR but more about rewarding those who stuck their necks out by either voting against the IWR or speaking out contemporaneously against it.

I think that, if we have a candidate who voted for IWR, the media and the Rs will hang it around that candidate's neck and blunt the moral clarity of our arguments against this war. I believe Kerry's vote for IWR hamstrung him greatly and robbed him of the ability to credibly hold the anti-war banner. He was reduced to saying "I would have run the war better."

I don't hate any candidate just becuase he or she voted for the IWR, but I would think it would behoove us as a party to get behind someone who opposed it - who bears no semblance of responsbility for this war.

We have to hit the Pugs over the head with this disaster of a war. We can win by galvanizing the massive unpopularity of the war with a simple, clear and concise message. If we do that, we will win in 08. But it's hard to do without that moral clarity.

I have not decided on a candidate as of yet.

[Ian David]

1. I support any Democratic in the ring except for Biden. However...

I think Biden would make a great Press Secretary or Ambassador to The United Nations.

[CTLawGuy]

3. maybe not press secretary

the way he puts his foot in his mouth sometimes

[Ian David]

6. That's just one more reason why he SHOULD be Press Secretary.

The press will concentrate more on Biden's Blunders, than the actual goings-on in The White House.

Why do you think Bush chose Scott McClellan to be Press Secretary?

Was it that he was so at ease in front of the cameras?

NO!

It was because Scotty was good theater.

It became about Scotty's fumbling performance, and not Bush's Bungles.

But then, when things got really bad, they needed a salesman with ice in his veins, and chose Tony Snow.

[Adelante]

2. I agree with you and...

While the issue was complex and sometimes it is oversimplified, the fact remains being sorry doesn't cut it. It's nice and all, but that kind of tragic misjudgment should not be rewarded with the presidency.

[CTLawGuy]

4. I see it as

rewarding someone who had good judgment, and recognizing that we can look light years more credible if we don't nominate an IWR supporter.

[Adelante]

7. Yes, we agree nt

[Pirate Smile]

9. I see it as wanting a President who has demonstrated good judgment

even when flying against conventional wisdom and popular opinion because, really isn't that the primary job of the President - making good decisions based on what is frequently limited information or as Fitzgerald said - when having sand thrown in your face.


I don't care if someone apologizes profusely or refuses to do so because that really has nothing to do with determining the wisdom of a candidates judgment when in the heat of the moment - when their judgment truly makes a difference.

[Ian David]

8. I wish I had that luxury, but it would make me a hypocrite.

Collin Powell had ME fooled, too.

Personally, I have no right to refuse to vote for someone who voted for the IWR, because I was fooled, too.

I didn't believe Bush.

But when Collin Powell stood in front of the cameras at The UN, I believed him and thought the grown-ups were actually in charge.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. A person who was against the war from the start

has more moral authority when he says he wants to get out. It also shows that he had the common sense enough to realize it would be a disaster before we went into it. That sort of thoughtful, cautious person, one who is focused upon peace and cooperation, is what we need. Though I will support any Dem who gets the nomination, I sincerely hope it is Dennis Kucinich.

[emulatorloo]

10. Just a note -- Kerry in 04 "I would not have taken us into this war if I were President"

Also called Iraq war "A war of choice" -- said that a President should only take a country to war because you have to, not because you WANT to, like GWB did.

Characterizing Kerry's postion as I would have run the war better is not correct. While he did point out the incompetence of the Bush admin in running the war (and he was/is absolutley right - they had no plan, they did not guard the munitions dump, the soldier were underequipped no bodyarmor, etc etc) that did not mean his position was as you say.

[CTLawGuy]

11. his vote for the IWR negated the force of that argument

I'm sure Kerry would not have taken the country to war, but he did vote to allow Bush to do it. That's the effect of his vote, which is what counts, and not his intention in voting for it, which is irrelevant.

[emulatorloo]

14. I think that is questionable logic

IWR has been done to death here as you know -- many voted for it to give bush leverage to pressure to get inspectors back in. Sounds like behind the scenes they were advised by Colin Powell etc that diplomacy was still being used, and that IWR was another tool to pressure Saddam. Sounds apparently that former clinton people were saying the same thing.

Quite frankly Bush abused the Congress. It is still bush's war. Bush did not have to go to war.

[rhett o rick]

12. They sold out democracy once, they'd do it again.

The democrats that voted to give unlimited power to the corporitist neocons sold out democracy and this Country. Their attempts at excuses are pathetic. If they did it once, they will do it again. In the words of GWB "Well uh you can fool me once ah well just don't try fooling me again."

[Luckyduck]

13. Kucinich deserves your support

He led the effort in the house of Reps to vote NO on the IWR

He is leading the effort to prevent a war in Iran.