[crossposted at DailyKos and My Left Wing]
Okay, before you all troll-rate me into oblivion, hear me out.
Last night, Keith Olbermann had Pat on his show to talk about the Cindy Sheehan Effect — how her efforts to talk to the President has possibly re-energized the anti-war effort.
BUCHANAN: …my feeling is that Cindy Crawford has ignited something at a particular moment, a movement, an antiwar movement. And I think it`s going to coalesce, and I think it`s going to grow. I think when the president comes back in September, some political figure in–probably in the Democratic Party is going to start giving voice to this idea, it`s time to bring the troops home, the way McGovern did, or Eugene McCarthy did in 1968.
[…]
…some of the things she`s been saying are far left. I think the souffle has risen and fallen as far as Camp Casey goes. But as I say, I think she ignited the thing at a moment when Bush`s poll, I mean, the support for him as commander in chief, the bottom is falling out of that.
Secondarily, you`ve got General Casey saying, We`re going to have substantial withdrawals. You get these horrible casualties. It`s coming back in the news, and we`re coming back in the fall to Washington. I think all of these things, taken together, and you`re going to see a politicized antiwar movement looking for national leadership.
Continued below the fold…
Buchanan went into more detail in his Hardball blog:
…Nevertheless, in a slow news month, Sheehan has helped turn the focus of national debate back to the war at a moment of vulnerability for the President. According to Newsweek, support for Bush’s handling of the war has fallen below 40%, to 34%, with 61% now disapproving of his leadership. Put bluntly, the bottom is falling out of support for Bush as Commander-in-Chief. September could see the coalescing of an antiwar movement on the campuses and in public protests.
Why is this not good news for the Democratic Party?
Here’s why. Cindy Sheehan clearly has the courage of the liberal Democrats’ convictions. In their hearts, many of them never believed in this war in Iraq, though their leaders voted for it.
But now that Cindy Sheehan has put a face on the antiwar movement and given it a voice, liberal activists will demand to know where Hillary, Biden, Edwards, Kerry and Warner are, and why they are standing with Bush in support of the war and not standing beside Cindy Sheehan.
Why is no leader in the Democratic Party giving voice to the antiwar cause with the perseverance and passion of Cindy Sheehan? Why are they all hiding in the tall grass, or making statements about how they support the war and the troops, but just disagree with how Bush has managed it. If polls are to be believed, half the nation now agrees with Cindy Sheehan.
[…]
…The problem for the Democrats is this: All their potential nominees — Hillary, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Warner — supported the war in 2002. All support the war today. One day soon, a national Democrat, a Gene McCarthy, is going to break publicly with the DLC crowd and the party establishment on the Hill, stand up and say, “Enough! It’s time to bring the troops home.”
Buchanan sees a repeat of the Vietnam era, where the Democrats were split between the “stay the course” and the “bring the boys home” factions. And indeed, that could happen — we’re seeing a lot of objections to potential Democratic candidates based on their support of the war (we actually saw it in 2004 with Kerry’s flip-flopping).
It’s why it may be too early for anyone to be crowned a front-runner; too much else needs to be settled. If the troops are long gone from Iraq by 2008 (for example, if the Iraqis come up with a constitution and we begin pulling out after the constitution is ratified and takes effect), the impact of the Iraq war may be lessened in 2008; the American public’s short attention span won’t remember who was for the war and who was against. A lot can happen between now and 2008.
But if a Republican talking head can see the potential long-term impact of Cindy Sheehan’s actions, rather than just sitting back and launching scum bombs like the Limbaughs and O’Reillys of the media world, it would be wise for the Democrats to heed the lessons of Vietnam.
