The New Republic: "Fundamentally, the Dean campaign equates Democratic support for the Iraq war with appeasement of President Bush. But the fight against Saddam Hussein falls within a hawkish liberal tradition that stretches through the Balkan wars, the Gulf war, and, indeed, the cold war itself. Lieberman is not the only candidate who stands in that tradition--Wesley Clark promoted it courageously in Kosovo, as did Richard Gephardt when he defied the polls to vote for $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. But Lieberman is its most steadfast advocate, not only in the current field but in the entire Democratic Party."
OK, so I also say that there is broad consensus among the ruling elite in the US that dropping bombs and maintaining global military dominance is A Good Thing. But it's important to note that this isn't a fringe view.
(On a more snipey note, how the hell is advocating dropping bombs and sending other people's kids to die "courageous"?)
On other topics, it's deeply strange to read TNR (and almost everyone else in the US and Canadian mainstream) saying that "average voters" are all for free trade and empire. This kind of imputing of values is as bizarre as it is sick. As if these people hang out with "average voters" and have any sense of how the cherished policies of the elite are affecting them.
If you replace: "average voters" with "my boss, or some other authority I aspire to emulate without understanding", then the analysis starts to be truly insightful.