As for you take, I agree that his position on education and investing in jobs is where he shines. A good, solid, FDRish stance. Kudos to him for that.

His view on Iraq and Iran, however, not so great (which is what you'd expect to hear from somebody on the leftmost edge of the party).

First, I hope he didn't really say Borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for gasoline from Iran is not a winning strategy. Or, if he did, he shouldn't repeat it. Might sound cool, but the Iranians IMPORT gasoline.

Second, I think the U.S. will NOT convince the Russians and/or the Chinese to enforce anything more than the mildest sanctions. If I'm right, where does Warner think the Dems should go next? You know what I'm driving at: does he back military action at some point?

Third, that Iraq position IS slippery. It's the same position that lots of Dem activists are taking - including some people I highly respect on most issues, but strongly disagree with on this one. I understand the argument: don't get bogged down in a discussion about what the Democrats would do until the Democrats are in a position to do something. The trouble is, as I walk precincts in two Congressional Districts (Xavier Becerra's and David Dreier's), I've enocuntered exactly what I predicted months ago: people are concerned about Iraq, but they want to hear how the Democrats would handle things differently. Telling them (in Dreier's district particularly) that they should vote Democrats into office and THEN they'll find out what Democrats will do is a conversation-killer.

Here's the situation as I see it:

Three years ago in August, Rumsfeld was telling the press not to call the insurgents the "insurgency." Coalition soldiers dead: 341. (Thousands of Iraqis dead.)

Two years ago in August, Rumsfeld said the U.S. was not an occupying force in Iraq. Coalition soldiers dead: 1104. (Thousands more Iraqis dead, perhaps a hundred thousand.)

Last year in August, Rumsfeld said Iraq is not fated for civil war. Coalition fatalities: 2068. Iraqi fatalities: Thousands more.

This year in August. Hmmmm. Where is Rumsfeld? Coalition fatalities: 2841. Iraqi fatalities: Tens of thousands, at least. Those killed in violence are running at 3000+ per month, and the toll gets worse each month.

The trouble, imo, with everybody who suggests that the U.S. can't just leave now because things will get worse keeps ignoring the fact that the U.S. has now been fighting/occupying Iraq for 41 months and things keep getting worse. With no end in sight despite turned corners and last throes.

I'm open-minded. If somebody can show me a plan that keeps U.S. troops in Iraq in a way that will make the situation better, I'll listen. Anyone, Wes Clark, Mark Warner, Joe Lieberman, I don't care. Show me in what way a continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq will make things better, I'm all ears.

But I haven't heard it yet.

My middle position? Pull back to Kuwait, Qatar and Iraqi Kurdistan, and make it clear that any overt attempts by the neighbors to move in will be met with the kind of force the U.S. can still muster quite effectively.

"We're trying to give the illusion of due diligence." --Bennett Holiday to Jimmy Pope in Syriana