We'll lose the WH in 2016 if our nominee doesn't run AGAINST Obama's wars.

[Ken Burch]

We had eight years of "force projection" and macho and all the usual bullshit. We're now about to get more of it in Syria.

This will massively split the potential Democratic vote for 2016, unless we nominate someone who is willing to make a clear break and run on a program of NOT GETTING INTO EVERY POSSIBLE WAR.

We can win with a candidate who commits to using force solely for our own territorial defense. We can't win by continuing to be what Phil Ochs called "The Cops Of The World".

Victory depends on building a coalition for healing at home and peace abroad. The world doesn't want us jumping in and trying to sort out everything through death.

And we no longer have the resources to do wars abroad and progressive politics at home.

I really hope our party's leaders accept this. The last time they didn't, we got Nixon.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I'm afraid that you're right...

And how much I hope you're wrong.

We also need to think about 2014; things could derail badly for our Congressional candidates if we get into Syria, and a wider war results.

[Ken Burch]

2. I almost wonder if Obama wants to make SURE we lose in '14 and '16

He's not governing like somebody who wants his party to stay in office would govern.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. I really doubt that.

But I can see why you think it.

I have zero good answers...

[HooptieWagon]

6. He may not be calling the shots.

Once TPP is passed, the people who appoint the next president probably don't care if R or D.

[LukeFL]

8. Has it passed?

[HooptieWagon]

16. Obama is still busy listing...

all the enviromental and worker protections his corporate sponsors want eliminated. Then it will pass, thanks to GOP and Corporate Dems.

[LukeFL]

7. His party is not happy with anything he

Does... It's like the left has made pacts with the right.

[Summer Hathaway]

19. His 'party' is pretty well satisfied

with everything he does. And his approval numbers among Democrats reflect that.

It's like you're not even interested in the facts.

[Ken Burch]

23. His party isn't in a conspiracy against him.

His party wants to stop him doing things that only make things worse(such as, any right-of-center policy choice that the guy has ever made).

Let go of the paranoia already.

[AverageJoe90]

3. I don't think so, Ken.

I still remember back in 2011 when a lot of people on this site were *quite* worried about the Libya conflict not only blowing up into a wider war of its own(which it didn't, despite all the bluster coming from Moscow & Tehran), but that there was a serious possibility of us losing the next election. Well, as we all know. despite the widespread fear & loathing going around, neither of these things happened; even the Benghazi attacks couldn't help RMoney....and the Mormon was one of the *best* candidates the Goopers were willing to put out: if a nuttier guy like Rand Paul runs, there will *have* to be massive amounts of electoral fraud for him to come even close to the White House if we run an even half-decent candidate......

So I wouldn't put too much stock into this: in fact, Libya has oil still, btw......Syria *doesn't*.

[LukeFL]

5. Bull- I don't think millions of progressives

Will vote for any repub. besides, this will not be like Iraq because Obama is not bush Syria is not Iraq

[HooptieWagon]

10. They won't vote for War, TPP, or NSA spying either.

Any Dem that wants to win better start publicly renouncing that shit now.

[Ken Burch]

24. No, but there's the real possibility that they won't vote.

Despair causes abstentions.

And if that happens(as it did in 1968, 2000 and 2010)it will solely be the fault of the administration and those within it who push for war.

This is why bombing Syria can ONLY be good for the Republicans. If Obama does it, it means he doesn't want his own party to win. He knows that out-of-control militarism is the only thing that can turn voters away from us.

Democrats are SUPPOSED to be the peace party, dammit. It isn't possible to bomb the Middle East and still support anything progressive.

[brooklynite]

9. Just lik we lost in 2012...

...after the limited military action in Libya.

[morningfog]

12. Libya at least had a defined goal.

I still was crazy about it. But the objective was somewhat clearer.

[brooklynite]

13. Stop a dictatorial Government from using chemical weapons on civilians...

Have I missed something?

[David__77]

14. But that's not the objective.

That would require securing those weapons. This is a "shot across the bow" strategy, in the president's own words. What if weapons were used again, and again? We get more slaps on the wrist, which is indeed what he's implying?

Libya is very different from Syria. The UN and NATO were involved in Libya. This is Obama making a decision, with no UN or NATO support. And one that will not protect anyone from anything. The civil war will grind on, and likely escalate.

[morningfog]

21. Stop is ill defined. There are chem weapons

currently being used. We can't bomb the weapons sites, that would release the chemicals. Crippling to the point where they can't be used is hard to define.

[hrmjustin]

11. I think we will be fine in the end. I don't support the Syria action but I think we will get through

it.

[David__77]

15. We definitely need some new stars in the party.

Those in congress who oppose this intervention deserve close looks. We need new blood.

[Taverner]

17. Exactly. Elizabeth Warren. Dennis Kucinich.

Anyone but the hawks.

[Control-Z]

18. Which wars are those, Ken?

Please, tell us?

[DonViejo]

20. Totally agree, which wars? Please tell us! eom

[zipplewrath]

25. Off the top of my head

Aghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria...

That's the short list.

And the truth be known, he could have gotten out of Iraq WAY faster.

[Ken Burch]

26. In addition to the wars listed below

There is the continued drone war, there is the war against civil liberties(I wonder if those who bashed Hugo Chavez on that issue will bash Obama for being pretty much just as bad, btw?)the push for war in Iran(which is half of what the Iran conflict is about), and probably a lot of killing we haven't heard about yet in various black-ops.

Barack Obama was not elected to be just as hawkish as Bush, for God's sakes. Why bother, when we already know that our tactics in the Middle East aren't helping anyone or anything(other than the oil industry)?

[Safetykitten]

22. Don't worry, in the lab they are formulating a candidate as we speak.

The person will have all the qualities that will make them palatable to a 2014 audience.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. The last one really fooled a great many of us. How are they going to top that?