[link|http://www.msnbc.com/news/964417.asp?0cv=CB20| MSNBC ]
I\ufffdve read this wartime script before: It\ufffds the one Richard Nixon and the boys used to obliterate George McGovern in 1972. Nixon took the relative high road, touting his secret peace plan to end the Vietnam War, while his henchmen, led by Vice President Spiro Agnew, portrayed (not without some justification) the Democrats as a party that had been invaded by a new generation of hippy peaceniks who loved nothing more than \ufffdamnesty, abortion and acid.\ufffd As a result, Nixon won re-election by a landslide in the midst of an unpopular war \ufffd through, interestingly, the Republicans didn\ufffdt gain an inch in Congress.
THE WHITE HOUSE PLAN
White House insiders I\ufffdve talked to in recent days say, in sum, the following: that they plan to sell the president to the country based on what they see as his strength of character, his leaderly resolve and his sense of moral clarity \ufffd a man\ufffds man, in other words. Critics who suggest another way in Iraq, one insider told me, tend to favor \ufffdnegotiations and embargoes. If they want to pursue a pacifist approach,\ufffd he said, \ufffdwell, that\ufffds a debate we are prepared to have.\ufffd
In other words, that is the debate they want to have. And by the way: Administration types and their Republican allies really do believe that critics of the war are dangerous.
Democrats - need a front runner who is unquestionably a patriot (Clark is assured a running-mate position if he wants one).
And they need to craft their political arguments carefully. Arguing whether or not we should've gone into Iraq is pointless - we're already there. Arguing whether or not our President has stretched our military too thin is not.
PS: Read Bepatient's post carefully : one possible interpretation (which may or may not be what he intended) - which I think you'll agree with:
Democrats have already won this election - it's up to them if they lose it at this point.