<...sadly, it'll probably work good in '04 too...>
I'm not sure we'll get a clear foreign policy choice, in 2004. There are some of the Democratic candidates, who are every bit as dedicated to Force, as the way to solve all foreign problems, as Bush is. When those Democrats criticize Bush, they are criticizing his tactics and execution, not his basic methods or goals. Democrats such as Lieberman or Graham would, in my opinion, be no improvement on Bush. Gephardt has been solidly in favor of the Iraq war all along, and hasn't shown any sign of wavering in his support of the President's foreign policy.
A similar situation exists in the UK. If the Conservatives win the next election there, there will be no change in Blair's policy of playing Tonto to our Lone Ranger.
Kerry got his start in politics, in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, but even he has been very timid about criticizing Bush policy. Dean and Kucinich, the peace candidates, are far behind in the polls. They have little chance of raising $20M by the first primary, which is what's required to stay in contention.
Americans against this war, need to see a clear Democratic alternative to Bush, or they may vote for Nader again, even knowing that increases Bush's chances of re-election. |
