I have been disheartened by comments about the disarray among Democrats by the media and some members of my own family. I have tried to explain to my family why this is not a real problem - it is a problem invented by the media. And I am heartened by some of the comments by the readers of Salon and plan to use their beautiful logic about the Democrats representing democracy and the right to debate!! Thank you Rob H, Tara, and DEnfield. We must get this message out to the media and friends and family. Let's not let the Republicans and the media again define who the Democrats are.

PegC

Why does everyone expect the Dems to have "the" answer on the awful Iraq mess. There is no simple answer that we can all come together on - including Repubs.

I like Obama's take on it - if a bus goes in the ditch, we should fire the bus driver first then we can all get together on how to extricate the bus.

Once again the media falls for the Rove spin in labelling Democrat disarray. The reality is that the White House dropped the security ball before 9/11, dropped the country into a collosal sink hole in Iraq on faulty information and without a plan on how to achieve their mushy, ever changing objectives; (combat terror, WMD, Democracy). The Democrats are in agreement that the Republican grade on national security is somewhere between F,Incomplete, and cheating on the test. Democrats are divided on how to get out of the mess which the Republicans created. Democrats don't march over the cliff in lock step and we can be thankful for that. The media needs to acknowledge that there is no single best solution to the Iraq fiasco and Democrat divisions are reflecting that reality. It's not disarray. It's just that the Democrat critical thinking skills are in gear, which is more than can be said for much of the other side. Sheldon Greene

It's never hard to spot the party of the President who thinks everything would be easier if he were dictator - attacking democracy at work. The whole world becomes more messy when you deal with truth - and particularly - when you can not bend reality into any shape that serves your plutocratic whims. Democrats are dealing with this. Predictably, Republicans call that weakness.

D: If you go in, at least get U.N. approval.

R: No, don't need it.

D: If you go in, at least take enough troops.

R: No, got what we need.

D: If you go in, at least go with a large coalition.

R: No, got all the coalition we need.

D: Would you please let other countries help rebuild?

R: No.

D: Would you please let other countries help train Iraqi troops?

R: No.

D: Boy, things sure aren't looking good over there.

R: Why are you so negative? Come up with some solutions, why don'tcha?

Just once when I read an article about the Democratic party can it please, please, please not have any of these sentences:

1) The Democrats have no message.

2) The Democrats are in disarray.

3) The Democrats better not gloat.

4) The public is going to turn on the Democrats.

5) Polls show the public doesn't trust either party.

6) The public dont believe the Democrats have the answer

either.

7) The Democrats better not think they can enjoy this.

8) The Democrats caused this fight and they are going to

be sorry.

I have no idea why in an age of total GOP political dominance the media insists on attacking the people out of power rather than taking on the people in power. But if they insist on demeaning the Democrats shouldn't they at lease change the script and come up with something new to say.

If it's true that the press is starting to shift its focus to the Democrtats' lack of a unified position on Iraq (from the administration's lack of a plan for Iraq), then it does seem like it was inevitable. Not because of any bias or fear on the media's part, but because the press is in the business of telling stories, and sooner or later, all storytellers change things up a little. They have to; no tale can continue in one direction, down one path, without the hero's (or villain's) fortunes changing. This was what I kept noticing in the months leading up to the 2004 election.

My hope--again, if this observation is true--is that an Abramoff bombshell is coming, and that it comes after, not before, the media has exhausted the Democrats' lack of unity angle. My fear--and it has been my fear since the first dings started appearing in the right wing's armor--is that we'd peak too soon. I hope that's not what we're seeing now.

One other thing: why should the Democratic Party (or the Republican one for that matter) necessarily HAVE a unified position on Iraq. Why is it not OK for one leader to have one vision, and another leader to have another, even if they belong to the same party? Doesn't it cheapen the war to reduce it to a political platform? Let Social Security and taxes (also serious matters, no doubt) be the stuff of political platforms--not war.

This reminds me of the ridiculous article written by David Broder at WP.

"Now, with Bush weakened by the war and other problems, Republicans on Capitol Hill are beginning to scramble for safety by voting their districts, not heeding partisan commands.

It is not an edifying spectacle."

As if "voting your districts" wasn't the point of creating representational democracy in the first place. Broder treats it like a tragedy that the two political parties are no longer monolithic entities that stifle any dissent or creative thinking.

Why does the media continually fall for this idea that message discipline is all that matters and that actually coming up with the best idea is irrelevant.

Hope they enjoy it while they can.

How are they feeling about their own "disarray", especially now with Abramhoff ready to squawk?