I am utterly tired of folks arguing that this war is mismanaged.

No it isn't.  The US military, even under the misguidance of Rumsfeld and Cheney, is still the finest expeditionary force in human history.

The ultimate problem is simple: Iraq is a clusterfuck and no good will come from staying.  At this stage, we might as well at least get most of our larger ground forces out and let the Iraqis do their own bullet-catching.

Their political strategy appears to be more popular with Republicans than Democrats.

21% of Republicans think Democrats have not gone far enough in opposing Bush.

14% of Democrats think they have gone too far in opposing Bush.

I guess that 14% of Democrats would include Will Marshall, Al From and Peter Ross Range.

Even if we ignore the Independents, wouldn't we be better off to swap the 21% Republican bloc with the 14% Democratic bloc?

Russ Feingold continues to plug determinedly along, opposing both the war in Iraq and the DLC's attempts to create a second Republican Party.

Go to RussForPresident.com right now and give what you can so that they can purchase blogads that will spread the Senator's message across the net.

They should at least be on the blame Bush band wagon, if they can't hope on the withdrawal bandwagon (and I'm not on that one yet).

If you want to send a message, or simply see the problems this will cause...you only need to look at 2006 to see the real potential for havoc.

Looks like that same 14% need to flushed into the Potomac at the first opportunity and the 21% of Republicans wouldn't miss 'em. Hot damn, there is a Jesus!

If you think this won't disrupt your 2008 campaign, think again, no matter who you are. And don't get any ideas that talking about poor planning and humvees lacking armor will be enough to appease.

To answer your question:  No.  

I read the above referenced WaPost article and poll findings yesterday morning, yet gave no thought to what was said on this subject at the DLC event.  That's a shame, I admit.

I do recall Vilsack and Warner brushing on the subject--more with inference than noted context.  But your answer to your question is still the same.  No perspective Presidential candidate fully addressed this issue.

Clark is the only one who is finding a favorable balance because he stated several time on CNN before, during, and after the Iraqi invasion of his apprehension for the planning and execution of that operation.  Today he correctly concludes that we cannot cut and run, but we also cannot "stay the course."

As for the DLC participants, each politician who wants to seek the Democratic nomination will have to fully address the content of this WaPost survey.  There is no getting around the subject because Democrats, liberals and centrists alike, can no longer tolerate unprincipled behavior in the nomination process.  Such behavior only produces the best possible candidate to challenge the Republican candidate, not the best Democrat who will succeed as President.

Take a good hard look at the wording of this question.  "Opposing the war" means many different things to many different people.  Don't read too much into this.  All this says is that many people want Democrats to be more aggressive in "opposing the war."  That is not the same as people calling for immidiate withdrawal.  There has been a tendency in the progressive blogosphere to take every poll on Iraq and infer that it means America wants out right now.  The reality of American opinion is far more complex.  Poll question wording matters.

Would I have said dems haven't gone far enough if I was a poll respondent?  Yes, but I suspect my opinion on how stronger criticism should occur differs from many who would answer the same way.  It is all a matter of degree.  Don't take this as a license to go overboard.

There's a built-in leadership measure in this poll.

If 14% of the democratic party voting base view Elected National Democrats as too strong on the war, and 77% view Democrats as too weak; and only three percent are actually happy with what they've seen and heard their elected Democratic officials say, then the National Democrats are only actually "leading" three percent of their own voter base.

This is pathetic. It is fewer than the Green Party can probably claim. You could even say that in practical political terms, there IS no Democratic Party any more.  

The 77% rejection level confirms my opinion and I'm surprised. This is an overwhelming rejection of the stand that a majority of Democratic Senators and House members have taken over the last three or four years. This rejection is so strong that it must also stand as a general measure of their stands on most public issues as well. It must be obvious to the DLC, to the Clintons, the Bayhs, the Warners and Liebermans and Beidens, that their approach to governance has just utterly failed.

So why do these Democratic politicians persist in these views? I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I must consider at this point, that something else must be going on that we aren't seeing down here in the trenches.  

blue73