Although Kerry lost his vote on "redeployment", he won a political battle

Bush and the Republicans were planning on making a major announcement that they were going to pull troops out of Iraq, so as to give the impression we are "winning" the war, before the November election. In fact, the very next day, Rumsfeld and General Casey made an announcement that perhaps two battalions would not be replaced when they rotated out of Iraq. In my opinion, Bush and Rove had plans to use that announcement as a propaganda ploy to persuade the American people that the situation was now stable enough to pull some of our troops out of Iraq? However, with Kerry's resolution to withdraw the troops by a date certain next year, they decided it was more advantageous to paint the Democrats as wanting to "cut and run", rather than to say they are pulling troops out because the situation is "better". I think Kerry and the Democrats won this battle.

'cut and run' tactic. Just a gut feeling on my part. People are sick and tired of this war--

is simply a diversion by Bush and the Republicans. This is about his Iraq policy - not the Democrats Iraq policy. The Democrats did not invade Iraq and tell the people that they were a threat to our security, that they had WMDs, that they would greet us with flowers and hugs, that the oil itself would pay for the war, etc. They told a big bunch of lies and now they wish they probably could "cut and run". But they have stuck us with a terrible mess, unfortunately.

Even my husband - who is from Massachusetts and is a "New England Liberal" and married his sweet Southern Belle knows this (because he lives in the South and KNOWS this).

He thinks it will be, gag, Mark Warner (and he thinks he's a DLC shill, too - he's just stating his opinion). He hopes it's Wes Clark - and not because of me, but because he served under him (I didn't even know my husband when I worked on the 2004 campaign) - but if it's anyone but those two, we've lost. His mother's a Biden fan and he's been telling her that Biden won't fare any better than Kerry.

I agree with him.

Still, this was a plus for our Party, imo... Since the majority of Democrats did not vote with Kerry, the Repubs cannot portray the "entire" Party as "cut and run", which is what a majority of our Party seemed to fear? However, it seemed to me that Kerry had the Repubs on the defensive and they were very uncomfortable defending the Administration's position. But, they were strengthened when the majority of Democrats agreed with them that we should "stay the course". I personally feel that is a losing position and that Kerry's argument was the stronger one.

Where is this coming from.

Why is a party, with so many veterans... with, historically, so many successful presidencies... heck, every Democratic president has WON a war while every Republican has bollocks it up... why are they so timid now?

I agree that what Kerry said is good for the party, I was just musing that, no matter what he does or says, his geographic location will cause him never to win.

Sigh.

I believe that many Democrats learned "triangulation" during the Clinton years and every decision had to be cautiously made, to be sure that we accrued the greatest political reward from each decision. This cautious "over-thinking" somehow made our Party indecisive and timid, rather than courageous and outspoken. Everything had to be studied very carefully for political impact before any decision could be made. In the process, we lost a lot of passion in our Party. Also, Democrats wanted to be "bi-partisan" and work with the Republicans but the Republicans wanted not to just defeat the Democrats but to annihilate them. Just my opinion.

do you people come from?

HOLY MOTHER-FREAKING GOD THIS IS NOT ABOUT 2008.

As for "winning" - does it occur to you that maybe, just maybe, "winning" has absoutely NOTHING to do with becoming president? Or even winning a vote?

WHY does EVERY conversation where Kerry is mentioned have to have someone start expounding on whether he will or will not "win" in 2008?

I will tell you this - John Kerry has "won" far more than most people will ever comprehend, and whatever occurs with respect to his political position will not change that one iota.

Edit to clarify: I absolutely disagree with the idea that Kerry won't "win" as narrowly framed in your post - but I think the question is WHOLLY irrelevant and in fact disrespectful to the topic of the OP.

Geesch.

I can work for 2006 and still talk about 2008.

You "2006ers" need to not be so rude and stop thinking that some of us can't chew gum and walk. Dear Lord.

And... it wasn't disrepectful in that the OP answered me. You need to get off your high horse, dearie.

The post is about the positive results of the Kerry amendment, and your reaction was that he can't win in '08.
There was a post yesterday about General Clark's call to a RW radio show, where he defended Democrats. I read it, I listened to the audio, and I liked what the General had to say. The reply I posted in the thread was a thank you to Clark. I certainly would not have posted "but you know he can't win in '08". If I had, I would have expected to be roundly criticized by the OP and others on the thread. It might then have turned into a flame war about '08, and not an acknowledgement of the General's actions.
The thread is still active. I could test my theory, but that would be disrespectful to General Clark, and not deserved.
Odd that Clark is trying to unite, and your post has the effect of undermining that effort. Reminds me of the Hillary group's protest against Gore's book signing. Off topic and counterproductive.

I didn't realize until it was pointed out to me today that 7 of the 13 votes for the Kerry/Feingold amendment were from vets. Fighting Dems, indeed.

I disagree, BTW, that Senator Kerry can't win. I think he can win in '08, and know a lot of people who will support him wholeheartedly.

Now, back to the original topic...

Sheesh.

:banghead:

Geez - - the continual crapping on Kerry for his sincere efforts to get a withdrawal plan is just so .....OBVI.....

and underneath, so desperate in its maneuvering.