You wrote: "However, unless I am reading this wrong, he appears to be actively caucusing Democratic elected officials to stop talking about withdrawal at a time when elected officials are already woefully out of step with the rest of the nation on the issue of withdrawal."

Argue for withdrawl, that's fine. Arguing withdrawl primarily because of public opinion is a recipe for disaster. Does anyone remember how high public support for the Iraq war was three years ago? We shouldn't be making military decisions based on public opinion. First off, the public was dumb enough to elect Bush. Secondly, Kevin Trudeau's (ex-fraduster/used car salesman) book is the #1 bestseller in America.

If Democrats want to listen to what Clark has to say, I applaud that. I have no doubt that Clark has the country's best interest at heart when giving his advice on this matter. We should do what is best for Iraq. If that's withdrawl great! But for chrissake let's not use public opinion as our driving rationale!  

Clark isn't against withdrawal, he's against a stupider than necessary withdrawal.  In additiona, he was giving advice on strategy.  And last I saw, with his consistent drumbeat on global warming, on Katrina failures (he was the FIRST major political figure to speak to the failures of leadership), he has an actual vision for this country.  It should help that he's actually won a war and stopped a genocide.  He has some credibility on how to end volatile international situations.  So first of all, you're wrong on the facts here.

Second, that he was AGAINST the war before the conflict on strategic and military grounds means that you might consider trusting his judgement over Hillary's on these affairs.  That Hillary is STILL pro-war is utterly ridiculous.  That she's speaking against violence in video games as Rome burns offends my sense of what it means to be an American citizen.

I am so scared about the world we're in, with energy crises and global pandemics, let alone terrorism, that I cannot fathom someone in leadership not being able to begin to fix some of the problems we have post-2008.

Iraq was a huge fuck-up, but he's probably right that a quick withdrawal would do more harm than good.  Setting timetables gives the people who want to destablize Iraq a date to hold out for.

I appreciate the fact that Clark understands that the mess Bush made can't be fixed by hightailing it out ASAP.

I can think of many more words to apply to it -- all of them expletives.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2123636/

For example, here's what Barbara Lee is reported to have said, conveniently left out in what you borrowed:

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus and leading voice among Democrats urging a troop withdrawal, said Clark "made a lot of sense," and confirmed what many have long believed - that this war "did not need to be fought."

Lee said that while there is a "broad spectrum" of views among Democrats on the issue, most all agree with Clark that diplomacy must be part of any plan to exit the region. She said Clark plays an important role in the effort because of "his background and his experience, he has a clear vision of how we got into this and how to get out."

"Members of the Out of Iraq Caucus have a variety of opinions and views, that's why the organization was brought together," Lee said. "But everyone wants out of Iraq."

That "everyone" includes Clark too.

The meeting Clark was invited to speak to was a strategy meeting--an attempt to get House Democrats to a concensus position.  Neither you nor I know exact what Clark said, but whatever it was, it apparently was pretty persuasive to the likes of Waters, Lee, and quite a few others.

What's wrong?  Aren't they progressive enough for you?  Or do you think they've magically stopped thinking for themselves?  Or maybe, just maybe, Clark is helping them get to where they want to be?

Nobody wants to see us out of Iraq any more than Clark does.  But he doesn't want to see a blood-bath in our wake.  And he also doesn't want to see the Party tear itself apart over policy we have very little chance of changing, and none at all if we don't stand together.

Really it's just that simple.
"A war we didn't need to fight." -- Wes Clark

Testimony given on 9 26 02: http://tinyurl.com/m6os ,
6 months prior to opting to bush's P-N-i-ACal war agenda - those congressionals surely had access to testimony the day it was given and long before that IWR vote was taken...what the heck do we pay our duly-electeds for and what were they thinking for God's sake? Has no Democrat pondering the future of this country bothered to read this testimony and get the facts straight?

No one bashes bush-policy better than Wesley Clark. No one!

Not progressive enuf for you all? Then no candidate is.

that is what her vote is intended to do.  whereas feingold votes for what believes to be right--not popular.

I think Feingold's stance is motivated by several valid reasons.  First, Feingold logically figures that Bush is going to do what he wants to do anyway, and couldn't successfully execute a plan even if he had one--so he is proposing a deadline to hold Bush's feet to the fire. Secondly, he is giving political voice to a large number of Democrats who favor withdrawal.  Thirdly, he is raising his own political profile in anticipation of a possible 2008 run--which I have no problem with whatsoever.

However, a deadline for withdrawal is NOT a coherent strategic policy for Iraq.  It doesn't say what Feingold would do as President, it simply tells Bush to quit doing what he is doing. Clark is playing to his strengths and his resume here, proposing an alternate strategy given the current situation on the ground.  He is not opposed to withdrawal--he is opposed to a public deadline, based on obvious military concerns that by stating when we will get out, the enemy will simply lay low and wait until we do--then all hell will break loose.  He proposes that we go on a DIPLOMATIC offensive in the region to try to make alternative security arrangements with Iraq's neighbors, who presumably would have some interest in avoiding a civil war.  Then if that doesn't work, he would support withdrawal once it becomes clear that there is nothing more that can be done to spare Iraq from its fate.  This stance is more responsible to our Iraqi allies then Feingold's is--after all, what protection does Feingold's plan offer the Kurds?!  What are we going to do if GENOCIDE breaks out--go back in??!!

Clark isn't dumb enough to think Bush will listen to his advice, but he is offering Democrats a chance to appear responsible rather than merely oppositional.  He is gambling that this will be more attractive to voters (even Democrats) that feel we have to offer an alternative solution, rather than just stop Bush from doing what he is doing.  

I actually think BOTH of them are doing the Democratic Party, and the nation, a great service.  You could argue that Martin Luther King AND Malcolm X advanced black people in their own ways, not to strain this metaphor.  I will be surprised if in 2008 Iraq is much of an issue, since I think the Repugs are wanting to get out of this mess sooner rather than later.  However, both these guys are giving the Party direction, and spine--in fact no other Democrats seem to have much to say about Iraq whatsoever!!!

And I see nothing that would preclude the two of them sharing a ticket in 2008, depending on who does what in the primaries.  And EITHER would be a dream after this miserable national nightmare called Bush.  

Conservatives are going to be very disappointed in Roberts.

I've never understood progressive support for General Clark.  Didn't he used to be a Republican?  Do progressives sincerely believe that he shares their views, or are they engaging in political calculation, figuring that he is the most electable candidate to speak out against the Iraq war and Bush's leadership?