bidenabc.jpg hillaryiowa.jpg

How do you know those polls showing an ever-increasing majority of the American public wants U.S. troops out of Iraq aren't a mirage? Mike Glover of the Associated Press reported from Iowa this afternoon:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that President Bush has made a mess of Iraq and it is his responsibility to "extricate" the United States from the situation before he leaves office.

. . . "This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," the Democratic senator from New York said her in initial presidential campaign swing through Iowa.

"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.

. . . "I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it."

Meanwhile, Hope Yen of the AP told us earlier today: 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman on Sunday dismissed criticism a resolution opposing a troop buildup in Iraq would embolden the enemy and estimated perhaps only 20 senators believe President Bush "is headed in the right direction."

"It's not the American people or the U.S. Congress who are emboldening the enemy," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and White House hopeful in 2008. "It's the failed policy of this president — going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely."

Hmmm… anybody hear an echo in here? What's encouraging, though, isn't just that Clinton and Biden can read the polls, it's that they're using the right kind of language to reframe the debate, just as Sen. Jim Webb did in his response to the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

When I wrote a month ago on this subject, I said: 

Dubya isn't insane (at least not entirely) — he (or Cheney or Rove, or whoever) is making a calculated gamble that the long-term benefit of sticking with the "resolve" narrative will overcome the short-term unpopularity of escalating the war… and that whatever fuss they might raise, Democrats won't be able to make them pay a permanent price for it.

. . . The way to change things, as I've written incessantly here, is to upend the tough-versus-weak GOP frame in favor of reality/results versus fantasy and false promises. . . .  Dubya's stance is not really resolve but the weakness of someone too insecure and afraid to admit a mistake.

In the post just below, Jane worried about today's anti-war protests, saying that "with a war opposed now by some 75% of the country, I'm not sure having it promoted as a 'fringe left' cause was the absolute best plan."  Whatever your feelings about Hillary and Joementum Jr., their comments today are a good starting point for an antidote.  Without a Wurlitzer of our own, Democratic politicians need to create their own echo chamber, seizing the language of responsibility, strength, and being on the side of the American people while identifying Bush/Cheney and their policies — quite correctly — with weakness and defeat.  

The more they do that, the more they will change the political calculus, making Dubya seem smaller and more paralyzed the longer he resists the new course set by the Democrats in Congress.  Which will either force him to give in or make it politically easier for the Dems to take the car keys away.

Related posts:

  1. A Public Option in the Democratic Platform?
  2. Looking Forward, Moving Backward
  3. Late Night: Yes, They’ll Even BS You about the *Weather*
  4. Jeb Bush: Stop Blaming My Brother for Driving the Country Off a Cliff
  5. Kucinich, Woolsey Urge Colleagues to Vote “No” on Supplemental