Can't we assume we will kick McCain's ass because of his Iraq War position?

More than any other puke, McCain has consistently been a staunch and loud advocate of Shrub's immoral and illegal occupation in Iraq. In fact, he bet the farm on it.

How can McCain do well in any head to head competition (or poll) against Dems when over 2 out of 3 American's want US troops out? An equal or higher number believe the war was a mistake.

I can't fathom how McCain could win given he staked much of his campaign on his support for the war; the same war that much of America now opposes. Are many folks simply going to forget all the bullshit, lies, and manipulations that have gone down over the past 6 years?

Or are pukes such sheeple that they will do what ever the GOP spiked kool-aid suggests? :shrug:

Since they both voted 'for' the war, people might be willing to vote for who's the least abrasive, and people have their own opinions on that.

How do you decide which of the two is least abrasive?

Above all McCain is senile

I'd vote for any Democratic candidate, even if the Rethugs ran a cloned version of Jesus Christ as their nominee.

Though she bit it on the IWR, at least she has consistently talked about an end game in Iraq (troops to begin returning home within 60 days of her assuming office).

The corporate-media seems to be ignoring the war as much as they are ignoring Edwards.

I would think that Obama in particular, and Edwards second to him could beat McCain easily if American's expressed opinions on the Iraq fiasco mean anything.

All of the sudden in 08 are folks gonna try and forget our fucked up war?

that still support dimson despite the mess he's made of everything.

And like it or not, there are people who will refuse to vote for Clinton just because they don't like her or her husband.
There are also people who wouldn't vote for Obama because he's AA, or Edwards because he's from the south. :shrug:

Not only maintain what we're doing now -- but MORE troops!!

I do think that'd be a major liability for him.

Just like the FratBoy did to Kerry.

The Democrats HAVE to get back to 2008 and stop rehashing 2002.

In the general election, they'll be speaking to a public whose majority were with BushCo on the war, and who voted for him in 2004. We need some of those votes. They now realize that (hello) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and they don't want to hear that they were idiots to believe the lies about WMD. They want to know what happens NEXT. And the Democrats are directly opposite McCain on that.

To be fair, McCain has often been vocal in his criticism of Shrub's conduct of the war. He's pretty much taken credit for the 'surge,' however so he'll be the pro-war candidate. I think the Dems need to remind Americans of the cost of this war, and ask them if they're willing to further risk prosperity and national sanity by continuing with this occupation.

Yes! And lets hope that the Dems remind voters during the next few debates of that very point.

Far better to hammer that point home in unison, then hammer each other.

We need that kind of message to go out, over and over, from all our candidates!

the Democratic candidates are kicking McCain's ass at this point.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

It's early yet and the results are close, but he may be the strongest Republican to beat if he gets the nomination.

And he beat them.

McCrazy's slate is the furthest from clean of all the other Pukes. All of the others can reinvent themselves, but McCrazy is stuck with his record. That should make him easy to beat...if it's about the issues.

All 3 of our candidates have a 'war problem'. Clinton and Edwards voted for it, and Clinton and Obama voted to fund it. Obama is in a somewhat better position for coming out against the war in the beginning. He gets to paint himself as "anti-war" because of it. However we can see how things he's done since then look inconsistent. With Hillary it'll be "she was FOR the war before she was AGAINST it!" Again, a problem with inconsistency.

Also, despite the unpopularity of the war, it's not really affecting enough people personally. The economy is going to be the big issue and they'll have to do a good job of driving the point home that the war is a big part of that vis a vis gas prices and the debt.

:shrug:

Most people vote for who they like the best and then rationalize the reasons.

If voters are polled on the issues, a majority almost always agrees with the Democratic positions. Just because most people now agree that the war is a stupid clusterfuck, doesn't mean they'll base their vote on that.

Clusterfuck is right.

Of all the things to base a vote on, it should be NO MORE clusterfuck puke wars.

Sadly, your explanation is so damn simple, and probably right on.

It would be a nail biter.

and the least nutso-appearing to the "mushy middle", so he would be their best chance, I think.

I just can't fathom after all we have been though of that fucking war --- that another war monger will get elected.

Of course, I could not fathom that America would elect Shrub either. Uh, thats right - it was the SCOTUS that elected him.

The episode when he was in Iraq and had 15 helicopters and 100 troops surrounding him while he could barely walk from protective gear in that Baghdad market (which was destroyed a day later) and saying it was a cakewalk would be the Dukakis ad on steroids.

Showing how much it costs a second for the war would be another great ad.

He's bound to blow his top or look like a an old lizard on the trail, so it would be easy to squash him like a roach on Royal Street.

McCain (who is the strongest potential Republican nominee in my view) and I think he'd pose a great risk of beating some of our potential nominees.

You know what they say about making assumptions ...

USA! during his appearances. This is going to be another "patriotic", fear mongering flag waving election. If you don't support McCain, you are against 'murca and you hate the flag, etc, etc.

so he gets a pass on being a Bush**loving warmonger.



Because of this, we will have a very difficult time beating him.

against McCain in MA!! Of course Hillary supporters use it against Obama because she runs slightly better against McCain than he does but even with a four-point Clinton lead in MA that's within the moe and is in a state which has gone DEM by huge margins since 1992. It just shows that McCain has a base of support among independent voters which is scary. I hope Romney wins Florida next week.