Josh Marshall is losing a lot of credibility with me right now.
In defending Clark's against the 'war waffling' charge, he says:
"[L]et's drop this idea that support for war under some circumstances and not others is some sort of waffling or dodge. Because if it is, then Dean isn't in the clear either."
OK fine Josh, if you want to muddy the waters about Dean's anti-war stance to help soften the 'Clark is waffling' charge, go ahead and try (I doubt people will buy it but that's your choice). But if you want your spin to appear credible you should really put a little more space between this post and your post two spots down which you put up only ten hours before.
"The idea seems to be that there are really only two positions on the war, the Dean position and the Bush position.
"Either you were against the war from the beginning, against even threatening force under any and all circumstances, soup-to-nuts, or you were for it, more or less under the same range of conceivable circumstances. If you have a position that falls between these two monochromatic options, you're indecisive, a waffler or a trimmer."
So which is it Josh? Is Dean against the war 'soup-to-nuts' or is he a waffler? Seems Dean may not be the only one with and 'evolving' position, Josh.
