The First Hot Button

[nacho]

So the troops in Iraq thing from the view of the Democrats.

Today's news has two folks from the Dem camp talking.

Biden: "I will not support a surge of troops unless it's tied to some reason for me to believe that they have a political solution,"

Hillary:  "she would not support a short-term increase in American troop presence in        Iraq unless it was part of a more comprehensive plan to stabilize the country."



So we can already see the weakness of the Democratic party here.  The same goddamned thing we see every election:  I am AGAINST that UNLESS I am FOR it!  MAYBE!  Probably possibly!

Meanwhile, the Republicans come out with supporting the troop increase.

So no one has a personal opinion?  And why the fuck won't the Dem front runners just say no, or yes, or whatever?  What's with this against-unless thing?  Why try to play both sides in something like this?  America is polarized, people.  You can't play up to anti-war and pro-war people at the same time!  And both sides hate you if you try to do that.

[Nubbins]

It's called keeping an open mind?

[nacho]

I'd respect that idea if they actually had something to back it up.  These are people who want to be President.  "I am against it...unless..."  And, then, no ideas on what they would do if they were in the same shoes.

I know, I know.  Dangerous ground.  Especially now that they're forced to run 23 years before the election.  But, still... I'm back to something I said way back in the RC for President thread -- shut up, people!  They're having knee-jerk reactions to every bit of tripe that wanders over the headlines each hour.  At this rate, they'll all change their opinion on Iraq 600 times before the election. 

This is going to be the "We really can't handle the internet world" election.

[Nubbins]

At this rate, they'll all change their opinion on Iraq 600 times before the election. 

This is going to be the "We really can't handle the internet world" election.

A changing opinion about Iraq is not a sign of weakness.  To me, it says that the situation in Iraq is strange and scary and constantly changing... because of those things, your point of view should be changing over time.

Is it better for someone to have picked a course of action in 2003 and stuck to it without fail ever since?  Regardless of the events that have taken place since then?

I see what you're saying about the Dems not having a strategy because I think you're right.  But the way I see it, the Dems and Republicans are in the same boat saying different things... the Dems at least admit that they don't have a clue about what to do whereas the Republicans just pretend like they know what they're doing and call it a strong, winning strategy.

[nacho]

In terms of becoming a candidate, it's insane to try to react to the changing face of Iraq this early on.  They're fumbling around like children, running weird non-campaigns and trying to be coy about coming out of the closet.  That's what's bothering me.

Worse still, they're starting to say the same things.  Either a party line, or just mirroring each other.