I am writing this without having read the debate open thread, so I may overlap some of what was said there.
Tweety went overboard in describing Hillary's "power play," but he was essentially correct about the significance of the moment. The three leading candidates have the same position on the war: withdrawal within a year of taking office, with some sort of contingency force either in Iraq or nearby (Kuwait).
Hillary initiated it, but it was Barack who said got Edwards to agree it was a "distinction without a difference." In short, you're coming too, you will not run to my left on the war.
This discussion could evolve, but this is the equilibrium we've reached. I'm more or less prepared to accept it, because, despite what I said in September ("cut funding"), to be nakedly political about it, these candidates have talked to voters for months. This is apparently what they've heard: End the war, but maintain stability.
This, or McCain's 100 years. A big diference. A big enough distinction for the independent voter, after all the qualifications, contingencies, and unforeseen circumstances are considered and discussed? I sure as hell hope so.
|