I see in today's Star Tribune, Senator 100 (Mark Dayton) was selected (or more likely eagerly volunteered) to carry some water for the Democratic Party. He's on record as "questioning the timing" of the President's forwarding of a 'use of force resolution' against Iraq. The article astonishingly doesn't give details as to what Dayton means by this, but I'm quite sure he's referencing the upcoming elections and the fact that any military action typically rallies support for the party in control of the executive branch.
Dayton's vaguely critical yet still noncommittal comments are an example of the common political tactic of sending out a trial balloon to see if a speculative, contrary position receives any positive feedback from the press and general populace. If these comments effect a bounce in the political polling they're engaged in, or if Dan Rather chooses to lead the nightly news with "Senator Dayton's well thought out and reasonable questions regarding Bush's risky scheme" or if it gets an above the fold mention in the New York Times with a headline like "Senate Attempts to Restrain Bush's War of Aggression Against Small Arab Country" (and a sub headline of "Minorities and Women Would Suffer Most")--they will use this message more widely and it will be mouthed by more prominent Democrats. Given Dayton's depth-defyingly low profile and credibility, "more prominent" would presumably include Paul Tsongas, Bela Abzug, and Wendell Wilkie.
However, if instead the comments are scoffed at and ridiculed (which will be the reaction from any reasonable person who hasn't been living in a cave for the past year), the topic will be dropped and the Democrats will move on to other options for eroding support for the President and for eroding our national will. Since Dayton has five long years ahead of him before he has to face the voters, his asinine comments will not affect his prospects of getting re-elected. Voters will forget and the press will not remind them. (And, since we'll have McCain-Feingold-Wellstone campaign finance reform imposed by then--private parties won't be able to remind voters either. Further evidence as to why the Democrats and mainstream media were such passionate advocates of getting rid of soft money).
Therefore, the DNC chooses a stooge like Dayton to deliver this message over someone like Paul Wellstone. Were Wellstone to start questioning the war on Iraq, his chances of defeating Norm Coleman in the upcoming election for Senator would be seriously diminished. So he's quiet as a church mouse on this issue, while screeching and caterwauling like a stuck pig about so called "corporate accountability." An article in this week's City Pages further explores the rather odd restraint of Wellstone's more radical impulses. The article's title alone (and maybe exclusively) shoud qualfiy it for some sort of journalism award (they have those, right?)
