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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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