Consent of the governed works both way.  If we think Democrats should have a say in governing even when Republicans control both Houses and the Presidency, then we need to provide an example of how we would govern.  If we expect people to vote for Democrats in 2006 and 2008, we need to give them something to vote FOR, not just vote AGAINST.  The latter hasn't worked for us in 2004, 2002 or 2000.

The key to a political victory is to unite the anti-war factions of the left with the pro-military factions that are sick and tired of what is going on over there. Build that bridge and you have an unstoppable alliance. McGovern didn't make that bridge and he was ripped apart.

That's why people like Paul Hackett are so attractive. They've been there. You can't call them anti-war defeatists. They want success and are untouchable because they actually lived Iraq.

It would be wrong for Dems to come out and ask Bush to cut and run.

Can anybody name a single Democrat who has asked Bush to "cut and run"?

Let's take a rational look at what Howard Dean and Russ Feingold are actually advocating, and then have a rational discussion about political strategy.

Second, let's stop helping GOPERS frame anti-war sentiment with statements like this:

Democrats need smart strategizing. Not childish emotionalism we are seeing here.

There is nothing childish about being opposed to Bush's Iraq war. I'll give Miri credit for addressing this comment to comments by other posters in the diary, instead of towards Dean and Feingold. I will also plead guilty to responding to statements like Miri's with equally strident accusations like "you low down dirty rotten warmonger."  

That's the way fast paced blogosphere flame wars work. Epithets become shorthand substitutes for arguments that may not even be parenthetically made.

Third, Nixon and the Republicans did not win the political argument about Vietnam. Nixon won the election with the help of the MSM for a lot of different reasons including internecine warfare between Democratic factions.

Like old Generals, Miri and the strategic class Democrats are fighting the last political war, not this one. They will lose the strategic political argument, because the RWNM and the M$M are not on their side and never will be. The RWNM and the M$M will praise Biden, Hillary and the strategic class Democrats, just like they did the Scoop Jackson Democrats, but the strategic political battle will be lost, because there won't be anyone on the other side.

I'm working on a diary about the strategic political goals and framing arguments that Democrats need to make. Attacking Bush from the right may provide a temporary tactical advantage, but will result in a long term strategic loss, because the American people will think that Bush and Gingrich are right or the Democrats wouldn't be attacking war opponents.

It would be nice to get everyone on the same page. I'll give that some thought before I complete my diary. Let's keep in mind that Howard Dean and Russ Feingold have presented very nuanced proposals that are not "McGovernite" unless other Democrats help the RWNM turn his proposal into a "cut and run" policy.

All Democrats need to stop bashing Michael Moore and start bashing Ann Coulter. That shouldn't be too difficult. Every time a Democrat bashes Michael Moore to boost their own robust liberal hawk image, Karl Rove wins.

I also reject the idea that telling the American people the truth about Iraq is not a winning strategic approach. We have two and a half years to make the case against Bush's war. If we start now there is plenty of time to refine the strategic arguments. The only way to win the long term strategic political war is by talking truth to power and truth to the American people.

BUT demanding accountability and some PLAN from Bush IS what should be coming out of EVERY Dem's mouth RIGHT NOW. Moreover, from every American's mouth who supports the troops.

As far as Nixon getting reelected in a landslide, I don't recall that the war was that unpopular yet back then. Remember the Silent Majority? Contrary to what people think now, MOST young people were not counterculture hippies and antiwar advocates and most of our voting citizens were very slow to admit the truth about Nam, especially given the very high casualty rate that was spread around the population much wider than it is now.

If the analogy fits, it's to prove that the party that gets the country into a morass is the one that pays the political consequences.

It's totally disingenuous to posit that Democrats will be giving this administration an out by hammering that it was the wrong war, and that we're losing, and that we need to get out as soon as logistically possible. If the 2004 election were taking place in today's climate, Dean would win in a landslide.

Continuing to play along isn't smart politics, it's more support for the same old "undifferentiable politicians" meme.

The two primary long term strategic goals have both complementary and conflicting themes:

(1.) Ending Bush's Iraq war as soon as possible.

      (a.) An exit strategy from Iraq.
      (b.) A political message that achieves that goal.

(2.) Winning the long term political advantage on the Iraq war that restores Democrats to power.

The first argument is going to be about which long term strategic goal takes priority.

Secondary political strategic goals include:

(3.) Winning back at least one house of Congress in 2006.

(4.) Winning back both houses of Congress in 2008.

(5.) Winning back the Presidency in 2008.

(6.) The last, but not least, overall goal of political realignment for another forty years.

Congressional Democrats went along for the ride during the vote for the war.  They should not repeat the mistake by going along for the ride during its execution.  They should lead instead of follow.

Some portions of my comment:

So the withdrawal issue is a sucker punch by BushCo. Deny any plans to withdraw, but push like mad to put in place items that can justify withdrawal of some kind before the 06 elections - winning by staying the course.
...
In effect, Bush has in place a conditional withdrawal strategy, but one whose conditions are not spoken, and therefore can be changed as things evolve. With a new constitution and new government, the only thing left is Iraqi military forces capable of securing stability of some kind. The later item is solely within Bush's power to declare as having been (partially) met.
...
The element not yet spelled out here is the ratfuck. How to get the Democrats to play into Rovian/Bushian hands to turn a military and political disaster into an electoral victory in 06 and 08?
...
How do the Dems avoid this Rovian ratfuck? This is pure politics to BushCo, and talk of the merits or demerits of various withdrawal/non-withdrawal ideas misses the major hidden context being pursued by Bush.

The full comment is here.

I'm beginning to think that attacking Bush from the right instead of calling for withdrawal or a timetable or a specified set of conditions is the better political strategy.  

We Dems. can't set national military strategy (or even tactics), so let's make sure we aren't ultimately blamed for the awful results that are likely to ensue.

Wise heads crafted this resolution (not me!) which places the onus of responsibilty on the administration to set an exit plan.

The resolution calls for "responsible and expeditious" removal of troops from Iraq, and for the administration to "fully fund veteran's and military benefits for our service personnel."

Text of resolution:

"Whereas the AZ Democratic Party is supportive of our Men and Women in military service and supportive of their families;

And whereas the AZ State Democratic Party opposes the reasons previously stipulated by the Bush Administration for war in Iraq, the method of prosecution of the war and its failure to have an adequate exit plan from Iraq;

Be it resolved that the AZ Democratic Party call upon the Bush Administration and the US Congress to support the families of our service people and to fully fund veterans and military benefits for our service personnel and we call upon the Bush administration to remove our troops from Iraq in as responsible and expeditious a fashion as possible."

more at:
http://www.az-vote.com

Two spring to mind immediately:

First, we need to get Saddam out of power.

Then, we need to make sure that the WMD programs are all dismantled.

Then, we can GtFO.

There is absolutely no point in our trying to compel the Iraqis to create a stable government or even negotiate peace between their own factions while we're occupying their country, unless we plan on staying for a decade, at least.

What nobody seems to understand is that anything that results from the processes we have initiated is predicated on our presence, oversight, and enforcement.

The moment we leave, we get to watch what happens when the Iraqis stop being nice and start being real. Our house of cards will collapse, and we either get to go back in and start over again, or stand by watch everything we built go to $#!+.

Assuming the administration is telling the truth about its aims in Iraq -- which, of course, it's not -- the whole damn thing is a waste of time.

In reality, what they're doing is trying to manipulate the game so that a pro-US corporatist establishment winds up in control of the country.

So, unless you're pro-colonialism, rapid withdrawal (immediate being too chaotic) is the best idea.

Cut some deals with the native power-brokers to ensure order is kept, and do your best to make sure other countries don't move in to take over. Or get the UN to round up some Arab peacekeepers who won't be seen as occupiers.

Just GtFO.

It pins any loss squarely on him, and implies that he's a failure thus far.

It also gives the Democrats an opportunity to list all the things he's done wrong so far. To avoid getting into too many specifics, Democrats could just say, "Well, back when we had the opportunity, we advised him to do X, but he didn't listen.  We're willing to discuss a course of action now, but we do not believe he'd listen to wisdom anyway." or "I did and he didn't listen then. I don't think he, anyone in his administration, and most Republican members of Congress would listen now."