Dean's anti-war stance will NOT be an albatross

I like John Judis and all, but his piece today in Salon, "The Trouble with Howard Dean", suffers from some serious unfortunate timing.

His argument, in short, is that Dean's anti-war stance, if he's the nominee, will propell him to a loss of McGovernesque proportions.

Given the recent turns of events, and of the public's wavering support for Bush and his war, it's increasingly clear that an anti-war stance may ultimately be the electoral safe bet.

And it looks like some of Dean's opponents have got the message:

Kerry: It’s been days since the President was flown to an aircraft carrier to announce that hostilities in Iraq had ended. Now, clearly, it’s time for the President to step forward and tell the truth that the war is continuing and so are the casualties.

Gephardt: President Bush’s factual lapse in his State of the Union address can not be simply dismissed as an intelligence failure. This president has a pattern of using excessive language in his speeches and off-the-cuff remarks. This continued recklessness represents a failure of presidential leadership.

Of course, Lieberman and Edwards continue to stake out solid "we support the war, it should just be run a teensy-bit better" positions, but I think Edwards will come around. Lieberman is hopeless.

Posted July 11, 2003 12:01 AM