Yes, the Democratic Party could be described as perpetrating a "culture of defeat."
While certainly some Democrats may have become "defeatist," I think a vast majority have just tried to stake out a position other than that of George W. Bush's, since his "stay the course" ideology was no longer resonating with the American people. Also, bringing our troops home should not automatically be equated with defeat. Though I personally think its a little early, we MUST pull our troops out before Iraq can be considered a victory. Once we have done all we can to assure a truly "Iraqi" democracy, then it is time to come home. That is even Bush's policy. Unfortunatly, it leaves many gray areas, and some Dems believe that the hour has arrived for withdrawal to begin.
While I peronally agree with Lieberman, I can also understand why many Democrats have distanced themselves from him. Just as I can't imagine Republicans flocking to a candidate with moderate to liberal views, the Democrats are unlikely to rally around a candidate with conservative views. Besides, how boring would it be without any opposition to argue with? 
bottom line is this, the democrats are incredibly split on this issue, theyre trying to define their stance in preperation for the next elections, they are using our troops to push their own political agendas (which absolutely sickens me), and the worst is that they want us to lose in iraq....
Well Dave, you start out reasonable enough, but the last two portions of your giant run-on sentence are absurd. The Dems are not using the troops for their political agenda any more than the Republicans are - has President Bush made a speech in the last year that wasn't in front of soldiers or sailors? Realistically, while both sides are working to stake out a position on the war, I think support for the troops is generally strong on both sides.
I have no idea why you would say the Dems want us to lose in Iraq. I haven't met a single Democrat, even the most liberal, who feel that way. Its an absurd, baseless claim, and just another example of an extremist nut attacking the patriotism of anyone who doesn't agree with exactly what he says.
Umm, he's made several, actually, Mike. Most of his speeches aren't in front of military personnel. So congrats on a baseless attack.
I don't recall hearing anyone attack anyone's patriotism.
And based on the constituent mail and email I read, there are: a) many on the left who want us to lose and say it outright, and b)many who call our troops "evil," "murderers," "rapists," and the like.
Perhaps it would be boring to have no "opposition," (you say that as though Lieberman is in lock step with Republicans about everything when that is outright false), but it's also a sad fight when all Democrats decide to put up are people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi. Lieberman is a true moderate, it would've been a much closer race had he been the Dems' candidate.
Bush has a long history of screening his audiences to make sure they are favorable to him. Let's not forget the video of his aids promting the soldiers he was going to talk to prior to their TV appearance. Not to mention all of his phony "town hall" meetings, where only his supporters who gushed all over him were alowed inside.
There are many on the far right who would literally like to see all opposition locked up, too. That doesn't mean I believe that about all Republicans/Conservatives. Extremist of all types are both absurd and dangerous.
Perhaps you missed the comment kerry made about what our troops are doing over there, clearly calling them terrorists:
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women." Then he goes on to say "...Iraqis should be doing that" referring to the terrorizing of kids, children and women.
So, he not only thinks that American soldiers are terrorists, he thinks that the Iraqis should be the terrorists instead? I'm so confused.
You think Dems don't screen their audiences?! Dean was not that popular in the South, but you watch footage of his speeches there, and you are led to think every Southerner suddenly decided they lived in a blue state.
Stop making such hypocritical arguments. All politicians screen their audiences. And don't forget Bush was the first President to grant seating on his Inaugural parade route specifically for protestors, unlike Clinton who had the police remove them from Lafayette Park. So don't bother making the statement that Dems are so much more open about their audiences than Republicans.
What conservative has said the opposition should be locked up?
See, you made a baseless claim. I guess that means you're guilty of libel, too.
Oh, the soldiers "prompted" came forward and said they were reviewing what they'd already planned to say. Did you select to misread the "nuance" in that?!
Did you forget the soldier who was a plant at a news conference for a reporter? The soldier asked a question that was clearly biased, and then later stated that he didn't think of the question, and the data the reporter gave was false.
We could do this all day, but you keep acting as though Democrats are perfect, and only Republicans do these things, when the fact is they all do it. Stop being such a hypocritical ass!
In advance, I apologize for calling you an ass, but you are one heck of a hypocrite.
Commenting by HaloScan
