Well, I agree. But does the American voter have the right to vote out the bums who didn't plan this justified, (in my opinion it was justified), war properly? I say we do, but only if we replace them with candidates from either party who aren't sticking their heads in the sand. Clearly, there are a lot of Democrats who are realistic about the war on terror and the war on Islamic fascism, (those of us who only read the blogs and the NY Post may have forgotten that most Dems voted for the war and for most anti-terror measures), but the problem is they're too silent or scared at this primary stage to grab the spotlight. Then we have people like Hillary Clinton, who is never clear enough about where she stands on most national issues that it has become maddening.

Here's a prediction: the first Democratic candidate for President who clearly states that he or she is for continuing the war but in a saner, better-planned way will be a tough person to beat even in the more liberal-dominated primaries. The trouble is no Democrat seems to have the guts to make that clear message right now. These guys have clearly been listening to their political consultants for so long, the obvious winning strategy eludes them.

Jake,

That Democrat animal is extinct.

And I assure you that I read more than blogs and the NY Post.

Jake:

The idea that the Dems can run a war properly is, what can I say, a feeble joke. They are the party of the UN, the party of appeasement, the party of the chattering classes, the party of the multi-culturalists.

They cannot be trusted with national security.

And let's not even get into their support of Israel. Even a recent poll by the Los Angeles Times showed that support for Israel was much higher in the Republican Party than among the Democrats.

Jake,
We may have met in another life: Coming back from political exile in '04, I looked to the Dem. Pty for sane criticism and thought Gen. Clark was it. That Kerry, Dean, and Edwards (a New England liberal, a NE radical, and a Southern belle) ended up as the Party's leading lights was mystifying, then maddening. The only reason I noticed Lieberman was through The New Republic's endorsement (I subscribed to TNR at the time), but he ended up a 2nd-tier candidate, like Clark. Now look at Joe.

Sometime, perhaps you'll let me take you to an "antiwar" demonstration in San Francisco. I'll show you the alleys the anarchists use to evade police after smash storefront windows.

I'm not bragging, just trying to taking stock.

Ha! Don't misunderstand me and think I'm saying the Dems could do it better. I'm talking about the rhetoric that can win elections. Do you think the people who voted for Clinton in 1992 had the slightest idea what he would or could do? Of course not.

As for 2004, John Kerry may have been able to win had he clearly said what he would have done differently in Iraq. Even if he couldn't do whatever he would have said, and even if he never intended to do it, he could have won. Instead, we got a confusing message and then people looked at his record. I don't care if you're George W. Bush or Abe Lincoln, it's never good news when people are looking at your pre-election record!

Jake:

Exactly. The Dems have no idea what they stand for. These days they seem to have jumped on the, gasp! anti Wal-Mart crusade.

I bet that has the Jihadists shaking in their boots.

Yup, anti Wal-Mart plays well with the unions, but the Dems have failed to notice that it's no longer the 1960's anymore and Jimmy Hoffa really is dead.

However, the American voter has often shown that he/she is willing to vote for the "other guy" even when the "other guy" is a complete unknown, (Clinton, Carter, Bush II), or is offering a plan that is completely "secret" (Nixon '68). The Democrats have failed to put together a candidate or a national campaign message that really means anything other than "we're not the other guys" since 1972, (not that '72 was a good campaign, but there was a message).

If you happen to be a Republican, it's important to realize that the winner in '08 may very well be one of these blank slate types who could be convinced to follow a sane path on terror, etc. once the election is over. Clinton was maleable in this way vis a vis welfare and a few other issues.

As for the Republican candidates, McCain is all talk, but I don't expect to see much of a difference from him if he's elected, (and that's a real long shot). The other front-runners like Bill Frist seem like blank slates despite a lot of years in Congress behind him.