Good question…

Good question…

…from Fugitive, in a comment.

Why should Kerry pop up and advocate for a specific timetable, let alone propose one? Simply because it's the morally responsible thing to do?

Not to be too cold hearted about it, but why should Kerry do himself political damage by making it easier for the right to call him a peacenik or an appeaser or a commie pinko subversive? Sure, it might play to the left, but does he need to do that?

Let me tackle the second part first. On the question of whether there's a 'left' worth playing to, maybe it's just an old codger thing. I remember when the left was proudly radical, when socialism in a variety of formulations was openly advocated by meaningful, if not majority, numbers. When soft-soap designations like 'progressive' were spurned and liberals were scorned.

Left? There ain't no left left.

It's true that taking a stand for a scheduled withdrawal is, to a degree, pandering to the conscious, but today that's become a conscious majority, at least in terms of how the war has been conducted. If the Democratic Party, the liberal blogosphere, Move On, etc., etc aren't about the business of expanding that consciousness, then we'd all best get about it.

The right will call him a peacenik, and an appeaser, and a commie pinko subversive, and worse. It's what they do. When you haven't got a real program for real people, there's not to do but spread fear and doubt about your opponent. One thing I feel pretty sure about, though. John Kerry won't let himself get 'swift-boated' again.

So, I don't think there's much help to come from the left, or much harm to be done by the right, as a result of Kerry calling for a withdrawal schedule with a deadline. Why then?

Well, the 'morally responsible' bit's important. My position is that ending the war against Iraq and withdrawing our military presence is the right thing to do, for America, for Iraq, for the world. The Democratic nominee for President of the United States should have a commitment to doing the right thing, because we count on the President to do the right thing. I simply can't imagine myself supporting a candidate during the '08 primaries that doesn't include a defined end point for the war in his or her portfolio. Getting to that point earlier rather than later counts, too, on my own score sheet.

It's particularly important for John Kerry. The moral authority he earned on the battlefield and carried into a Senate hearing room is the essential basis of his entire political career. I thought he was mistaken when he voted to authorize, with specific provisions, the use of force to disarm Iraq if they did not submit to the regime of inspections required by the Gulf I treaty, but I accepted his vote, and the reservations he placed on that vote because it was based on what he thought he knew, what were, in fact, lies. It's time for him to acknowledge that mistake, and to redeem whatever cost his morality autority paid for that vote. The next step can't be ignored, though. He must chart a course to correct that mistake. It's an essential step for Kerry if he's going to run a successful nomination bid.

It's more than that, though. It's a matter of political practicality. Frankly, I think it should be the position of every Democratic prospect. There's simply more to be gained by campaigning with a plan to end the war than without one, and the plan needs to be detailed and definitive. The American people are increasingly looking for such a plan, for some light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. We can deliver that. The Republicans can't. It's time to give them full ownership of this war, and make them carry it to the polls.

Similarly, I believe our best hope for Congressional success in '06 will be to run as the party of real security, not reckless adventurism, and fiscal sanity. Some people think it's the wrong war. Some think it's the wrong way.

Everybody's beginning to understand that it costs too damn much.

In money, too.