let's declare war on outsourcing, racism, etc...

Obama used that language twice in the debate:

We have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down, networks have to be dismantled.

do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.

All the candidates should flesh out a strategy to "dismantle terrorist networks" around the world.

terrorims is the war of the poor.

I think this was one of the smartest points of the night. I have always believed that the only way to fight an ideology that spurs terrorist tactics is to show compassion. Edwards was right on when he talked about stopping the next generation of terrorists from being born. Funding public education in places like the middle east and Africa, and being a leader in humanitarian causes around the world is the best way to fight the ideology. If we show people compassion the hatred towards the U.S. will dwindle.

I am an Obama supporter... and I agree with you.

He should have kept his hand down.

But that's a long shot from comparing his position on this to Hillary's. Her position is, as far as I can see, identical to Bush's. She voted for the war. She apparently thinks her vote was not a mistake. She says if there's a terrorists attack during her Presidency she will react just like GWB.

All Obama did was raise his hand.

Well, maybe you're right. Someone suggested above a replacement phrase of "Dismantling international terror networks." This seems sensible to me. It's probably a good thing to move away from war imagery and military imagery, and towards a sort of police action mindset. In this sense the "War on Terror" most closely approximates the current "War On Drugs" instead of the "War On Poverty."

That being said, I simply don't agree with you that "War on Terror" is a nonsensical phrase, and of course it is a metaphor: a metaphor for fighting Islamic Fundamentalism. Everyone knows that's what it means, and it certainly means something.

So I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the "War on Terror" as a phrase, per se. Perhaps this is semantic parsing. It's true the phrase is now tainted by Bush, and for that reason probably should be retired. But there's a big difference in a change of metaphor, as you say, and a change in strategy. Insofar as everyone understands what "War on Terror" means, and insofar as that understanding holds a claim on American political discourse... then I believe the war on terror represents a valid and important national security strategy.

You have people becoming Islamic fundamentalists, all around the world, alone or in established networks, seeking to attack the United States the only way they can--through terrorism--by car bombs or whatever weapons they can acquire, WMD potentially among them. These people are a large threat to the United States. The strategy--the "War on Terror"--is to disrupt this pipeline at every step. Police actions and detective work is hugley important. But ultimately what is necessary is to stop the source, which is the conditions and idealogy that is enabling terrorist networks to flourish.

Now this disruption doesn't require military action, or actually fighting actual wars. The last few years of the Bush Administration have shown that very clearly. But it does mean things like pushing Middle East reform, moving the U.S. away from an oil-based economy, working on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, etc.

This is what I think. The "War on Terror" is a discredited phrase now, but it still stands for a strategy which I believe is correct and proper. This has nothing to do with Edwards or Obama, because both of them do believe in the strategy that I outlined above.

I agree with many here that the phrase, GWOT, is imprecise and a poor frame for Democrats.  However, as an Obama supporter, I am happy that he put his hand in the air. Why? Because this is a loosing semantic battle for Dems.  Not raising your hand can be twisted by the wingers, and efforts to explain why the term is inaccurate only reinforce its Republican frame.

We need to pick our battles carefully.  Hillary is already attacking Obama for being insufficiently militaristic in his response to the "What if we were attacked" question.  If HRC is willing to go after that in a Dem primary, just imagine how the Repubs will use this if Edwards gets the nomination.

Finally, this Diary raises a subject that has been on my mind for a while.  Why is the lefty-blogosphere so obsessed with political correctness?  Many spend hours parsing every utterance of the candidates for signs of insufficient political correctness.  This is stupid and counterproductive.  It makes it harder for our candidates to get elected, and it has little to do with how they will actually govern once in office.  

First, I was quoting the Politico, although I do agree.

As for this, you simply do not know me:

"This is just another example of you placing more emphasis on political correctness than on actually doing what is necessary to defeat the Republicans."

Frankly, you make no sense.  The GWOT is a terrible term and use of it reinforces the loss of our freedom.  Words have meaning, and these words justified invading Iraq, torture, the loss of our freedoms.

Terror is a tactic, not a person or place or country.  It can never be defeated.  Therefore, we have endless war, which is the whole neo-con project.

Read Soros' book.  It's good.  There are many others. Do some real research.  

you guys will post lots of polls with no deeper thought to them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk /article1660976.ece

The Development Secretary, Hilary Benn, will cast his lot with critics of the Bush Administration tonight when he questions the validity of the phrase "War on Terror" during a speech in New York tonight.

His address will place the Government firmly on the side of the Democrats in what is presently a fraught debate in Washington over the use of the expression, which was coined by the Bush Administration in the days after the September 11 attacks and taken up by Tony Blair as Britain joined the wars that followed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Benn will argue that the term -- which takes the form of "the global war on terror" or "GWOT" in US policy documents -- gives an unwarranted legitimacy to the struggles of small fringe groups which really do not have much in common.

He will also say that war is only part of the solution to combating terrorism and Britain and America should do more to use the "soft power" of values, ideas and reform to bring about lasting change in the failed and angry states where terrorist groups prosper.

I think the question was extremely open to interpretation, and therefore virtually meaningless.  I think their answers to the terrorism questions gave much better insight to the candidates.  

He as went by Barry in the past.