Andrew is calling attention to Stanley Kurtz's bit and to angry lesbians in history (o.k., that's a cheap shot).
Anyway, Kurtz raises his debate on the wrong grounds. The issue isn't 'dovish democrats', wholly. The question is how are the wounded hawks going to respond.
This has been a concern since the outset of OIF, as I myself worried aloud during the 2004 election whether re-electing a President who had lost credibility on the facts so seriously could ever lead the Nation in an open conflict again. Since then, we can add getting bogged down as a millstone around the wounded hawks' neck.
As an aside, for those who do not remember, the correct way to read big-C Kissenger is to ignore virtually every prognostication (grave threats, catastrophe for U.S., etc) and just focus on the analysis.
Here is one piece of analysis to turn on its head:
So long as Iran views itself as a crusade rather than a nation, a common interest will not emerge from negotiations. ...Iran needs to be encouraged to act as a nation, not a cause.
The truth might be the reverse. When the U.S. starts to understand how to deal with Iran as a cause and to some extent a Nation, it will finally get its policy approach tuned to the right frequency. (This may be why old-world diplomats must be listened to, but not untemperedly).
