Centerfield

Well, we'll see whether this is a smart move to attract suburban white primary voters, won't we? Especially if his primary opponent takes pains to criticize this "magical thinking" as you put it.

I think we need to see more detailed measuring about the true nature of support for "withdrawal" from Iraq. I mean, everyone is in favor it in the abstract, the real questions are over how and when. In the absence of measures of these hows and whens behind support for withdrawal, it seems to me to be a mistake to read such poll number moves as anything other than an increased perception of how difficult a task it is that the President has committed us to...

IMO, President Bush deserves criticism for either underestimating or underexplaining the cost and scope of this policy of preemption. Most Americans either feel or wish that this was unecessary, and would rather not have to deal with it.

Yes, everyone is in favor of withdrawal as long as there are no bad consequences--except perhaps for a small number of conservatives who would like permanent bases in Iraq from which to threaten Iran.

It would be useful to ask a question like, would you favor withdrawal from Iraq even if the result was that the insurgents take over the country. I'm not sure how to word it properly, because I don't like to have a question with a premise that some may not accept (i.e. some things that American troops are the problem, and if we withdrew, the insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process).

Still, I think it's a valid question. If we asked that question of Americans in 1972, many would have said yes, they wanted American troops out even if the result were the communist victory which eventually took place.

Since Bush isn't going to withdraw from Iraq in the short term, this may be a successful strategy. Mfume can advocate rapid withdrawal with impunity, with Bush as his backstop.

In other words, the badness of this idea will never be proven as long as Bush ignores it, which I imagine he will.

Rick's right. I tend to think there is a vast gulf between what people will tell a pollster - especially when the question is carefully loaded ("do you think America should end the routine deaths of its soldiers by ending its illegal occupation of Iraq?") - and the conclusion they reach when their answer actually matters. If the democrats become the party of "cut and run" - no doubt the goal of the latest Kos offensive - they'll have hit rock bottom.

Of course, that'll only work for him if many suburban MD voters are cut-and-run. Some are, no doubt, but like everywhere else, the 'burbs tend to be less liberal. I'd characterize them as largely left-leaning centrist, which means he's doomed (IMHO good, Mfume's no centrist) (I used to live in his House district).

He may even have trouble in Baltimore due to scandals over how he ran the NAACP.

The argument between Cardin and Mfume is moot...

Michael Steele is going to win!

;)

This seems like a smart strategy for Mfume, to attract white suburban support in the primary. It might also work in the general election in a state as Democratic as Maryland.

Must we be so cynical as to assume that Mfume's position is based on the need to attract white suburban support, rather than his actual views and principles?

(Well, he's a politician, so cynicism is probably the right assumption.)

I sense too that a cut and run position will hurt the Dems as well and lessen the blow that the GOP would otherwise take on this issue.

Gen Wes Clark was here in Wisconsin the other day raising money for Democrats and was asked about Russ Feingold's proposal on Iraq. Clark was very diplomatic in rejecting it saying that setting a deadline for withdrawing would be a bad idea.

If I remember correctly that was essentially the position Paul Hackett took in Ohio and came very close to winning in a largely Republican district. If the Dems want as many seats to come their way on election day, they need people running like Clark and Hackett.