Waste of time. I guess reporters are so used the monolithic, one voice per party they can't can't get used to a real political party where people speak their minds & work out a consensus (or not).

The reporter sees no nuance in the three leading Democratic presidential contenders position on Iraq. But just taking one example of John Edwards. The sentence prior to his "all options are on the table" was "The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions." This he fleshed out in an interview with Ezra Klein in which he talked about carrots and sticks. The carrots being providing nuclear fuel for power plants and help to their struggling economy with help from European banks. The sticks would be economic sanctions, not military. Every President says "but all options are on the table." The point is who do you trust to NOT use nuclear ... More »

This article does a very good job of defining the split personality of the Democratic Party over the issue of foreign policy, and as related to the Presidential race.

Talking about something we should have begun talking about a year ago - a war on Iran. Pointing out that candidates need to stop rehashing the past and start paying attention to the ramafications of the stance we take now re: Iran, Darfur, all the rest of this small world.

interesting depiction about Dems' balancing act between pleasing antiwar activists and mainstream independent voters; nonetheless, aren't the Republicans just about as divided?

I think the piece is a fair assessment of the lack of differentiation among the candidates and the administration concerning the next war. However, Rieff, as well as his subjects, all stop short of saying the critical N-word--NUCLEAR War! With that in mind (and left on the table), perhaps he should have ventured a little further? (All respect and thanks to George Lakoff for this perspective.)