Why the Democrats cannot win in 2008-Iraq
Eftychis | 27 05 2007If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!
The Democratic Party cannot win the 2008 presidential election for one simple reason: Iraq. As much as I do not like his show, I caught this segment on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown on MSNBC the other night. In this segment, Keith discusses how the “American people have been betrayed” by the Democrats for “giving in to the president” and not following through with the mandate they were elected to do. He (like most Americans) says that the Democrats were elected in 2006 with the clearest mandate of any new Congress in US history: get US soldiers out of Iraq. Even someone with a moderate understanding of the complexities of government would know how difficult it would be for the Democrats in Congress to pass legislation and to force the president into withdrawal. Of course, the average American would not understand the logrolling and underhand deals that have to be made to pass any sort of bill in Congress and make it so much more difficult for the Democratic Party’s majority to get their way.
All the Democratic presidential candidates (with one exception) were supporters of the war initially and several of them have not overcome that obstacle. However, if the Democrats in the House do not pass a bill (even if it is purely symbolic) that is endorsed by the media (even those on the far left like Olbermann are rejecting the Iraq bill) by the end of the summer, the public will loose any faith it has in Pelosi and her minions.
As someone who watched the Democratic debate and the two Republican debates, I can say that while the Democrats only offered a plan for withdrawal, all of the Republican candidates offered some coherent strategies for stabilizing the country. The Republicans suggested increasing troop levels, bringing in the United Nations, and even dividing the country into three states united by a federal system. My point is that if the Democrats are unable to get US soldiers out of Iraq (which is very unlikely), the American people will look for people with solutions for how to stabilize the country and it is obvious that many of the Republican candidates are waiting to unveil their strategies.
The Republican candidate will have a distinct, if not so obvious, advantage when the national campaigning begins. The Democratic candidate may point out that the Republican Party began the War in Iraq. Unless, however, the Democratic nominee is Barrack Obama, the Republican front runner can point out that not only did they authorize the war, but when the Democratic Party was elected into power in both houses, they failed to confront President Bush in nearly two years.
Both parties are in trouble, but right now the only thing going for the Democrats is their Iraq withdrawal strategy. If troops are not pulled out of Iraq by the spring of 2008, mark my words: the Democrats will not win in 2008.
Eftychis
Editor’s Note: This post was edited for grammatical consistency on May 27th at 12pm.
Last 5 posts by Eftychis
- Russian oil slump fuels supply worries - April 15th, 2008
- The Global Food Crisis - April 15th, 2008
- "Off-the-Record Obama" - April 14th, 2008
- Putin's inability to alter the international system - April 6th, 2008
- McCain's first general election ad - March 28th, 2008
Popularity: 44% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
The Why the Democrats cannot win in 2008-Iraq by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.





