I admit to being prejudiced with respect to John Kerry. I happen to be someone who is negatively influenced by his actions from meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris, his testimony to the Senate in 1971, his activities with Jane Fonda, the VVAW, his meeting with the Sandinistas in 1986. To me, that represents the real John Kerry, and I want nothing to do with that person.

Everything he has said since is was spin to counteract his previous activities, which he seems to largely still embrace.

I think that number 6) nails him, as did the Doonesbury cartoons from October 1971.

Clearly, any analysis of this campaign has to start with 5.

A year ago only political junkies, Democratic Party activists and the people of Massachusetts knew who John Kerry was. If Bush's record were that good Kerry's character wouldn't be the focus of anyone's attention. Since it isn't, character issues have been the focus of the President's campaign. The flip side is if Kerry had a consistent record of fighting Bush when he thought he was wrong even when this was unpopular he'd be in a good position to run on issues. Since he doesn't, he has tried to show his fitness for the office by talking up his own character, by emphasizing his combat record.

Bush's record looks worst when the details of how his policies were decided on and implemented are examined. The great majority of voters do not perform this kind of examination on in any election, though, and Bush gets points from a public still rattled by 9/11 for being steadfast, or at least for looking steadfast. He won't get those points forever, of course, if things continue to go badly in Iraq or the economy sours; the question is can he hold on until the election.

Well, if Bush's strengths are salient to voters and his weaknesses involve things voters rarely focus on, and Kerry's attempt to wrap himself in his war-hero past have not kindled enthusiasm for him beyond the people who would vote for any Democratic candidate, what is left? The debates, especially the first one -- Kerry's shot at giving the voters a clear, unmediated impression of him compared to Bush.

It looks to me as if Kerry is preparing to bet the farm on his ability to make the sale here. I don't think it's a bad bet. Kerry historically has been pretty good in debates; Bush's successes in this format have never come when his own record was the primary thing being discussed. Moreover Bush has run his campaign as he has run his administration, with first priority given to avoiding situations that make him personally uncomfortable. This means restricting his appearances to meetings with preselected, friendly audiences. This could be a serious mistake in the context of debate preparation; a few moments of Bush-in-the-headlights standing next to Kerry on national television could do serious damage to Bush's image as a strong leader, his greatest selling point.

At this point, absent voter doubts about Kerry, Bush would have a hard time getting reelected. The best and maybe the only way for Kerry to remove those doubts is by appearing next to Bush on television. It isn't that high a bar for him to clear. This isn't 1984 or 1996, years of peace and prosperity where most voters needed a reason to make a change. This year they have plenty of reasons. John Kerry just has to reassure them that letting those reasons guide their vote wouldn't just mean making things worse.

Gotta disagree, Jim.

Those are legitimate criticisms, and your resulting prejudice is unfortunate but also legit.

But I do not think they are criticisms of Kerry's character, but rather of decisions and values that you simply do not share. And I see your interpretation of "spin" more as the inherently contradictory post-9/11 viewpoints demonstrated by almost everyone.

I am put off by the President's habit of telling it like it isn't. I see that as deception, and an issue of character, not values.

Clearly, any analysis of this campaign has to start with 5.

A year ago only political junkies, Democratic Party activists and the people of Massachusetts knew who John Kerry was. If Bush's record were that good Kerry's character wouldn't be the focus of anyone's attention. Since it isn't, character issues have been the focus of the President's campaign. The flip side is if Kerry had a consistent record of fighting Bush when he thought he was wrong even when this was unpopular he'd be in a good position to run on issues. Since he doesn't, he has tried to show his fitness for the office by talking up his own character, by emphasizing his combat record.

Bush's record looks worst when the details of how his policies were decided on and implemented are examined. The great majority of voters do not perform this kind of examination on in any election, though, and Bush gets points from a public still rattled by 9/11 for being steadfast, or at least for looking steadfast. He won't get those points forever, of course, if things continue to go badly in Iraq or the economy sours; the question is can he hold on until the election.

Well, if Bush's strengths are salient to voters and his weaknesses involve things voters rarely focus on, and Kerry's attempt to wrap himself in his war-hero past have not kindled enthusiasm for him beyond the people who would vote for any Democratic candidate, what is left? The debates, especially the first one -- Kerry's shot at giving the voters a clear, unmediated impression of him compared to Bush.

It looks to me as if Kerry is preparing to bet the farm on his ability to make the sale here. I don't think it's a bad bet. Kerry historically has been pretty good in debates; Bush's successes in this format have never come when his own record was the primary thing being discussed. Moreover Bush has run his campaign as he has run his administration, with first priority given to avoiding situations that make him personally uncomfortable. This means restricting his appearances to meetings with preselected, friendly audiences. This could be a serious mistake in the context of debate preparation; a few moments of Bush-in-the-headlights standing next to Kerry on national television could do serious damage to Bush's image as a strong leader, his greatest selling point.

At this point, absent voter doubts about Kerry, Bush would have a hard time getting reelected. The best and maybe the only way for Kerry to remove those doubts is by appearing next to Bush on television. It isn't that high a bar for him to clear. This isn't 1984 or 1996, years of peace and prosperity where most voters needed a reason to make a change. This year they have plenty of reasons. John Kerry just has to reassure them that letting those reasons guide their vote wouldn't just mean making things worse.

Related to #4 and #5, I think, but nonetheless should be said:

The voters have witnessed Bush's character first-hand under trying circumstances. And so it's easy for the Bush people to say: who are you going to believe, John Kerry or your own eyes? I've said it before, but I think that Bush won the election on September 20, 2001, when he had a great speech in the National Cathedral in the morning and stood at Ground Zero in the afternoon. Issues like the National Guard just seem meaningless in comparison.

Contrast the voters' direct experiences of Bush's character with Kerry's tabula rasa. Kerry tried to fill in the answers to character questions with his Vietnam resume, but voters have not witnessed his heroism first hand. Indeed, if the voters witnessed anything first hand, it was his anti-war speeches. This allows the Bush campaign to attack much more effectively, since it turns into a mere he-said/she-said.

We know that Mr. Kerry's ability to switch major positions in mid paragraph, and more often, in mid sentance is high on his list of negatives. With htis point in mind, explain to me please, how any debate can occur on any topic, much less one of this import, with Kerry involved. Seems to me one of the problems with any such debate is even assuming Kerry wins such a debate, with the ideas expressed, we can, based on past performance, pretty much bet the farm, that he won't stick with the points he's made,a nd will in fact come down to the left of the position he's staked out.

The Us can ill afford to have such a sort in the WH.

Zathras,
So good you had to say it twice?

As usual, a cogent argument. However, I have to disagree with most of it. Kerry is going to have a hard time "making the sale" based on the debates since many, many supporters have already left the room. He's like a speaker who, faced with the most critical event of his life, spends twenty minutes clearing his throat. Frustration is hardening to anger among his supporters: why is he not making his case? What is he for? Right now they're "standing by him" and channelling that anger towards the Republicans, but I wouldn't be too sure they're going to show up in droves (what if there's a long line at the polls? hint: as a poll worker for the past two elections let me tell you, there WILL be).

Still, I think it's a mistake to call this a referendum on "character." I don't like the implication that it's up to me to look into these guys souls and render a judgment. What we have to do, for the first time in a generation, is decide between two worldviews, knowing full well that a mistake MIGHT make a catastrophic difference not somewhere way down the line but in the next few years. That's a heavy burden, and I don't think chalking it all up to character gets us anywhere.

Voters are getting angry right now with a system that seems determined to stifle real debate between the two parties lest anyone upset their core supporters. Whoever can demonstrate that he will cross his core on a matter he deems of national interest could reap a huge windfall. Who's gonna have a Sista Souljah moment first?

Clearly, any analysis of this campaign has to start with 5.

A year ago only political junkies, Democratic Party activists and the people of Massachusetts knew who John Kerry was. If Bush's record were that good Kerry's character wouldn't be the focus of anyone's attention. Since it isn't, character issues have been the focus of the President's campaign. The flip side is if Kerry had a consistent record of fighting Bush when he thought he was wrong even when this was unpopular he'd be in a good position to run on issues. Since he doesn't, he has tried to show his fitness for the office by talking up his own character, by emphasizing his combat record.

Bush's record looks worst when the details of how his policies were decided on and implemented are examined. The great majority of voters do not perform this kind of examination on in any election, though, and Bush gets points from a public still rattled by 9/11 for being steadfast, or at least for looking steadfast. He won't get those points forever, of course, if things continue to go badly in Iraq or the economy sours; the question is can he hold on until the election.

Well, if Bush's strengths are salient to voters and his weaknesses involve things voters rarely focus on, and Kerry's attempt to wrap himself in his war-hero past have not kindled enthusiasm for him beyond the people who would vote for any Democratic candidate, what is left? The debates, especially the first one -- Kerry's shot at giving the voters a clear, unmediated impression of him compared to Bush.

It looks to me as if Kerry is preparing to bet the farm on his ability to make the sale here. I don't think it's a bad bet. Kerry historically has been pretty good in debates; Bush's successes in this format have never come when his own record was the primary thing being discussed. Moreover Bush has run his campaign as he has run his administration, with first priority given to avoiding situations that make him personally uncomfortable. This means restricting his appearances to meetings with preselected, friendly audiences. This could be a serious mistake in the context of debate preparation; a few moments of Bush-in-the-headlights standing next to Kerry on national television could do serious damage to Bush's image as a strong leader, his greatest selling point.

At this point, absent voter doubts about Kerry, Bush would have a hard time getting reelected. The best and maybe the only way for Kerry to remove those doubts is by appearing next to Bush on television. It isn't that high a bar for him to clear. This isn't 1984 or 1996, years of peace and prosperity where most voters needed a reason to make a change. This year they have plenty of reasons. John Kerry just has to reassure them that letting those reasons guide their vote wouldn't just mean making things worse.

Ok, Ok, Zath - we get it.

It's number 7. Kerry is gawdawful - and we keep doing this to ourselves. Is it that hard to find a Democratic politician who can at least credibly pretend to be human?

Suppose that Bush believes the only way Kerry can beat him is with a successful debate.

Then why would Bush debate him? Why not cancel the debate at the last minute?

He could for example have a national security crisis. "No time for debate, I'm doing something more important." Soon after the debate time is over he announces the crisis has been resolved and the terrorists have been captured.

Or whatever excuse. Why should he give Kerry a chance? "When the going gets tough, Bush goes elsewhere."

No, Zath was much clearer the 5th time.

But I'm still missing the assumption in paragraph #4. Does Kerry really require Bush to show a "deer in the headlights" moment to win - similar to Gore's situation? If so, the expectations should now be low enough for a clear Bush victory.

Point 1: I'd feel better if some polls showed a wide Kerry lead in addition to the statistical tie of Pew and the evolving blowout of Gallup. Generally, when you see polls all over the place, the best guess is that reality is somewhere in the middle. Sorry, I think this argument is wishful thinking.

Point 2: If it was convention bouce, it would have faded by now.

Point 3: The John Kerry Bush character issue is either "Bush lied and people died" or "National Guard". Both stories are old. Folks have made their judgement about their relevancy. Old media has been trying to push National Guard back up on the radar screen since the Swifties launched their attack. It hasn't worked real well because there is nothing new to the stories that wasn't the product of inept forgers.

Point 4: Kerry tried to make his Vietnam service his foreign policy qualification. A challenge to that service is likely to have a larger effect.

Point 5: I think that this truism is a truism, but a better Democratic candidate would be whiping the floor with Bush, based on Iraq, deficit, and Bush's fundamental public incoherence. Teh campaign has turned to seom extent on a referendum on Kerry -- which is not where tall John want to be fighting.

Point 6: For each Kerry scandal, there's an equal and opposite Bush scandal. It's just that Bush's past misadventures do not have the same shock value, because they have been reported on, 24 news analyzed, and ultimately discarded. I wonder what would happen to Bush's poll numbers if the DUIs revealed back in 2000 had not come to light until now...

Point 7: Brazile's advice is great. I have the feeling that Kerry's "Seabiscuit" qualities is the stuff of urban legend.

The article is certainly interesting, but I'm not sure I buy the premise. Or at least, not all of it. I think in this particular election, character and the war on terror are such closely entwined issues that it is hard to separate them. In short, whose character (whose leadership), do you think can better respond to the threats of terrorism?

Voters already know how Bush will react during a crisis. They have seen it in action. He said he would invade Afghanistan, and he did. He said he would invade Iraq, and he did. He said he would cut taxes, and he did. You can react to these actions: support them, not support them, or remain unsure. But you already have an idea from previous experience, whatever the President may say.

John Kerry has to make the case that his character (and ideas) are better at this moment in time for America. He may yet find a way to effectively communicate his ideas, but he must be very direct because you have 'action' on one side versus 'talk' on the other. Always the problem with incumbents versus challengers.

#6 is what weighs heavily for me. I'm a pro-life Democrat sort (Catholic). If it's just politics as usual, I tend to vote for pro-life candidates, and that would be Bush. This year, though, the problems with the Bush administration led me to decide to try to put aside my rather strong feelings about abortion.

Kerry, however, has gone out of his way to make that difficult for me. He has argued that he believes the Church teaching and that somehow that is compatible with his aggressively pro-NARAL stance. This came up much earlier this year -- and it left me with the very strong impression that he's a guy who will NOT speak clearly about his views if it risks alienating voters. He wants to be a Catholic. He wants to be the perfect NARAL candidate. Well -- I just don't think you can put those two things together. Either he's lying about privately believing Catholic teachings OR he's a moral coward who doesn't let his private conscience have ANY impact on his public behavior.

OK -- this is not the issue that bothers most people this year. I raise it because it's exactly the problem that has cropped up with his presentation of himself as the Vietnam war hero. He did it because he wanted to present himself as strong on defense. Yet at the same time, he was an anti-war leader and his record in the Senate is quite dovish. He could have presented the mixed package honestly, but he chose not to. It's the same pattern -- appealing to values that matter to people (Vets, Catholics) while acting in ways that belie the concerns of those voters. I think that's why the vets are so upset with him. Their anger certainly has resonated with me.

His incompetent campaign hasn't raised him in my esteem -- and I find that these doubts about his character were being raised by Mickey Kaus, and others long ago.

I'm still deeply troubled by Iraq. Kerry gave a good speech on the subject today. I may even end up having to vote for him. But if I do vote that way, it will leave me sick to my stomach... not just because he's the NARAL dream candidate, but also because I really think there's something repugnant about a guy who use beliefs and values that others cherish in a way that is blatantly politically opportunistic. I am also worried about how his relentlessly mediocre performance as a Senator will translate into actual leadership as a President.

Still pondering the awful choices that lie before us...

Fundamentally, I think the answer lies with points 4, 5, and 7.

This election is a referendum on the sitting pres. Americans are not asking themselves (like they were in 2000) "why do we have two rotten candiates?!", but rather "do I trust the guy in the white house to have 4 more years of power?"

That's why the big debate is about history. Both sides are trying to show that in the past their opponent was an idiot.

And bush's people came out swinging a lot faster and a lot smarter then the dems. As a person who as bemoaned the lack of party organization on the dem side, I think none of the dems disorganization and softballing comes as a surprise.

which leads us to 7. I wanted a dean/edwards ticket, but hey, I was the minority. Kerry was a safer choice and would be a pretty good president (and a much different one from GW). But he lacks that something that compells people to pay attention when he walks in the room. Well, so did James K Polk, so history says that you can have less than a charasimatic president and still get a good one. Alas, in this election, if Kerry can't run a campaign that convinces people that electing bush is a bad idea, then he's (and alas us) is doomed.

Of course we're all missing the big question - what do people really thinkg about George Bush? Will the people voting on Nov 2 be willing to relect him president? More and more public commentators and public supporters of GW's 2000 campaign are starting to tilt against him. This is good. But are they a critical mass? Polls tell us only so much, and what they're telling us is what they told is 2000 - a slim majority doesn't want him as president. But was we all know, majorities don't win presidencies - the electoral college does.

c.
sez the campaign ain't over yet

A a former 'ACADEMIC' debater, I'm completely
convinced that in a formal setting Kerry would
mop up Bush.

But Presidential 'debates' aren't. Essentially
they are joint Press Conferences.

And both Texas and the U.S. are littered with
Bush opponents who could easily 'win' the debates.

It was (is?) Kerry who should be avoiding the
'debates'; not Bush.

I predict after each 'debate' Kerry will find
himself 'behinder and behinder and behinder'.

Stick a fork in the Junior Senator from Mass.
He's toast.

Cheers.

"I voted for Kerry before I voted against him"

AM, are you trying to undermine my point?!

c.
is laughing that we posted about 180 degress from each other at the same time

#8: Maybe the American people simply want to elect a lying, out-of-touch, under-achieving, silver-spoon frat boy who can't be bothered to give a shit about the country.

That's the only one that explains it to me.

It's about institutions.

The Wurlitzer isn't called meak.

And Kerry's not up to the task of storming the castle at the pit of the hell this country is staring into. Sad thing is, none of the candidates were. No one who is moderate enough to get elected is partisan enough to really wrap their heads around the character and nature of the other side and dirty enough to fight like Karl Rove.

If we could graft the conventional wisdom at Daily Kos, Jonathan Chait, a Teamster, a Marine veteran and Harrison Ford circa 1985 together and teach this half man, half monkey how to speak with a drawl, well, that would be a start.

Short of that, things look bleak.

I think that #5 is the closest, but ignores that Bush poll numbers turned positive during and immediately after the Beslan crisis. Beslan made crystal clear that there is no atrocity that is heinous enough for the Islamo-facist terrorists to eschew. Every American has a strong idea of how George Bush would respond to a similar crisis in America. Bush would respond aggressively and forcefuly. On the other hand, most people are unsure how Kerry would respond and, more damning, are unsure whether Kerry knows how he would respond.

I'm going to have to say its 2,3, andn 4 that are mostly responsible for Bush's strong position. (5) just doesn't make enough sense on its own. Ifs omeone told you the country was in a protracted guirella war and gave you the economic #'s, almost everyone would assume Bush's approval ratings would be in the low 30s. Instead becaue of 2,3,4, we have Bush bouncing above 50 again. Even in palces like Ohio, hardest hit by the war and the economic situation, we still have a tight racec.I think the artifcat argument, although does have some strength behind it, is a dangerous game for ABBs/dems get in to.

Hewit is a first-order hack extrodinare and not worth the electrons he wastes. I skimmed his peice, and can say, he lived up to expectations. Honestly people who believe the character arguments really are evidence of the failing american school system. You would think stupidity on that order of magnitude would prevent them from breathing, but apparently it doesn't. For the first 20-years of their adulthood, we have one man who was an alcoholic drug-using philanderer handed everything on a silver platter vs. a man who went off and fought for this country heroicaclly, and then came back and challenged the unjust war we were fighting.

Bush has flip-flopped on MAJOR policy issues within MONTHS (sometimes days/weeks) you idiots -- are you guys realy this stupid? Kerry gets accused of flip-flopping over decades, or if flip-flopping because brain-dead right-wingers can't understand anything more complex then "nuke them back to the stone age". The stupidity of the cheerleaders on the right never ceases to amaze me.

On his latest lying s-o-b flip-flop -- apparently he has told his favorite stool-pigeon, Robert Novak (via tpm), that we are pulling out of Iraq right after the election. Apparently the war isn't any longer about establishing democracy in the middle east. We don't give a shit about democracyc anymore, hence us sitting on our ass as Putin declares himself supreme-ruler in Russia. Now the war in Iraq was about "removing a dictator who had a desire to restart his Weapons-of-Mass Destruction related program activities if United Nation sanctions and inspections were lifted". Dan , I eagerly await for you tp ost on this story, beccaue this shouldd effectively lower p-value to 0 for Bush. I also await the wing-idiot response on how this latest projection of strength is a sign of dear leader's great leadership on the war on terror.

I find myself agreeing with Kelli that the real issue is a clash of worldviews. I find that GWB’s worldview as I understand it is something I could never support.

I find myself agreeing with Zathras that Bush should have a problem getting reelected with his record. (but notice that Z is busy lowering expectations for Bush in the debates).

The scariest thing however is that I find myself agreeing with AM that worldviews and the record are not going to win for Kerry. Bush may lose it, but Kerry sure isn’t winning it.

Kerry doesn’t have any passion. He doesn’t project a sense of conviction but instead projects a sense of calculation. As Kelli observed in another thread, women voters are not warming to Kerry because he hasn’t made an emotional connection with them. Gore may have been stiff, but he was passionate. Kerry, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be passionate about anything. That’s why the flip-flop label resonates even though he hasn’t changed positions in a real sense with any greater frequency than Bush has.

Perhaps his passion was all used up in opposing the Vietnam War all those years ago. Who knows? All I know is that he won’t win unless he makes a real connection to people like AM. I guess I hoped this election would be a referendum on the record of the sitting president, but I fear we might make the wrong choice as a nation because we just cant seem to make an emotional connection to the alternative. Because of that, we may reward mediocrity. It’s depressing.

A flip-flop even John Kerrry would be proud of.

Bush will exit Iraq quickly in 2nd term, democracy or not

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal

Apparently, Sully is the only wing-nut to have covered this flip-flop so far. InstaShill where are you?

*Voters already know how Bush will react during a crisis. They have seen it in action. He said he would invade Afghanistan, and he did. He said he would invade Iraq, and he did. He said he would cut taxes, and he did.*

MD - that's a cherry-picked list. Why did you stop? Voters have also seen this:

Bush said he would reduce CO2 - he didn't.
Bush said he would reduce arsenic in water - he raised it.
Bush said he would fund Americorps - he cut it.
Bush said he would fund "first responders" - he didn't.
Bush said he would not be a nation builder - he is (trying).
Bush said he supported free markets, then he imposed steel tariffs, then he repealed them.

I've posted this list several times, so I'll stop here.

(well, OK. One more - what "crisis" were the tax cuts in response to? If you're thinking recession, remember, they were 1st needed because of the surplus.)

Bush has been very direct, both when he says he will do something, and later when he doesn't do it. Never any doubt.

An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser.

Holy shit, is this country screwed.

#4 and #7 come close, but I think part of the problem stems from the Kerry camp confusing attacks on Bush's Iraq policy as a plan for America. We as voters know that there are problems in Iraq and have issues with how Bush is handling it so such attacks, albiet justified, aren't really providing a viable option for voters in choosing between a troubled path and an alternative. Given a choice between a 'bad' plan and no plan, voters will pick the bad plan hands down.

To that extent, Kerry's time spent countering the fiendish Swift boat attacks had an opportunity cost...taking time away from his ability to outline his vision for a "Kerry America." (Assuming Arguendo that he has a 'vision').

Dan, it looks as if a software glitch resulted in multiple postings from me on this thread. I apologize.

I got a "page cannot be displayed" error message, which I assumed meant the post I had sent had not gone through. It looks as though it did. I regret the resulting clutter and inconvenience to other posters.

Don't worry Zathras. We knew there had to be a good reason. Now, if it had been Jor...

But seriously, someone here has linked my thinking to that of our friend TexasToast. WTF? I stopped considering casting my vote for Kerry round about March. TT is still fighting the good fight. I respect that, even if I think he's wrong. Would that the same courtesy were accorded Bush's half-hearted supporters like me.

Still, let's face facts: half-hearted support still trumps the cold fish sort that Kerry's so called backers currently hold for him. It means I'll stand in line even it takes all day.

And one last point, I'm really tired of people raising this spectre of a Kerry comeback (as in pt 7). Newsflash: Kerry's ability to claw his way back in Senate races meant only that he had grossly squandered the good will of a small state electorate that thinks mostly like him! That makes him the lazy hare who should never have come close to losing. Moreover, voters are not nearly as forgiving when it comes to the presidency. The goodwill he squandered by not coming off the starting blocks ready to run will never be regained. I've said it before and I'll say it again, a guy who can't run his own campaign cannot be trusted to run the country or the free world.

You think Bush runs his own campaign?

*Moreover, voters are not nearly as forgiving when it comes to the presidency. The goodwill he squandered by not coming off the starting blocks ready to run will never be regained. I've said it before and I'll say it again, a guy who can't run his own campaign cannot be trusted to run the country or the free world.*

Voters not forgiving when it comes to the Presidency... squandering goodwill... can't run his own campaign... can't be trusted...

Wait, I re-read the 1st part of your post. OK - I'm squared away on your candidate.

(geez, that sounded nasty - can't wink in an email) ;~)

Opposing a candidate for President for not running a *campaign* you like is like choosing a unversity based on who does the best fraternity rush.

The character gap in perceptions, if the polling trend toward the President is real, is most likely based on the indifference most people have about what the candidates did during the Vietnam War, as opposed to a genuine sense that Kerry stabbed his military brothers in the back on his return. As one who actively protested the Vietnam War, I recall being appalled by those who had no compunctions about repeating lurid tale of misdeeds by our troops, regardless of the evidence. Kerry was in the camp of those who undermined the legitimate anti-war protestors, and caused deep hurt to many returning veterans and families who lost loved ones. That pain has not gone away, and many who feel that way would be loathe to see someone like Kerry become Commander in Chief.

Wisher: nice try on the list..but we all know that the arsenic bit you cite is a fraud...nothing more than soft-headed playing with numbers. The same things is said when Dems yell about budget cuts when all that really happens is the increses were scaled back. Nice try though.

AS for the orginal points: How come when citing that Kerry has such a great record of coming from behind nobody ever bothers to point out that Kerry has a great record of coming from behind IN MASSACHUSETTS. Dems out number Repubs, what, 2-1, 3-1, 4-1? Is this really a strength that can be relied upon in a national election?

Looks liek Kaus will be proven correct. If Dems really wanted to win they should have had the courage to nominate someone like Lieberman.

Ciel,
Actually, it's more like choosing a college based on the attractiveness of the marketing literature, the effective sales pitch of the admissions representatives, maybe even the hotness of the student body at large. Now, granted, none of this gets to the core of the value of the education a given school offers. However, in the competitive marketplace of contemporary academe, no good school is sitting back waiting to be discovered, and if they do a lousy job marketing themselves they will not long be able to afford the faculty and facilities that make them such a gem to begin with.

In other words, in the academy as in politics, if you can't pull it together long enough to convince your target audience, chances are you can't deliver on your promises either.

Actually, it's more like choosing a college based on the attractiveness of the marketing literature, the effective sales pitch of the admissions representatives, maybe even the hotness of the student body at large.

Or like buying a car based on the slickness of the marketing campaign.

In a word: stupid.

Maybe the American people simply want to elect a lying, out-of-touch, under-achieving, silver-spoon frat boy who can't be bothered to give a shit about the country.

If that were true, Kerry wouldn't be doing so poorly in the polls.

Bush said he would reduce arsenic in water - he raised it.

Absolute, utter caca de vaca.

Clinton did absolutely nothing about arsenic in water for eight years, and then imposed a new, arbitrary and extreme standard as a going away present. There are a handful of communities in the country where arsenic in the groundwater (the problem is nature, not industry) could not be reduced to these new limits without bankrupting the communities or imposing the burden on the rest of us. There is not convincing evidence that the particular new lower limits Clinton pulled out of the air would have a health benefit close to their cost.

Opposing a candidate for President for not running a *campaign* you like is like choosing a unversity based on who does the best fraternity rush.

It isn't that we don't *like* his campaign. It is that we don't like what his campaign reveals about him. We are choosing a Chief Executive, not a weathervane.

tricale, you have earned your position in the wing-nut hall of infamy, along with other incoherrent members such as Kelli, Mark B., David Thompson (on vacation), and TexasToast. Dubya, was an alcoholic, drug-using, philandering, man for the first 20 years of his adulthood. He was handed his admissions and his employments directly form his father. There are very few people who have squandered as muchc oppurtunity as Dubya has. Kerry definitely can't compete with a straight-C student.

On, a close your eyes, and stuff your fingers in your ears Monday. Let's see how things are going in Messopotamia. Two senior republican senators call Iraq an embarrasing failure. Tony Blair says Iraq is a disaster. The CIA says the best case scenario is "tenous stability". What does George bush say publically? "This country is headed toward democracy ... Freedom is on the march."
What does Bush say in private? He's going to bail out of Iraq as soon as the election occurs here. Another victory in the War on Terror thanks to Dear Leader.

Cognitive-Disonance '04!

wishIwuz2,

Yes, that is a cherry picked list, and one that reflects my biases just as the list you cited reflects yours. And biases are not, in and of themselves, necessarily bad things. I just think more people pay attention to things like invading countries than arsenic or CO2 levels, during the actual invading and, er, nation-building part. I am not defending all of Bush's actions, I was just pointing out that he has some very strong decisions to run on. And Kerry has to do more of what he did today, sound forceful and direct. He sounded better today than in any of his recent speeches. However, I don't think he will be able to internationalize Iraq in any significant way. We have hardly any NATO troops compared to US troops in Afghanistan. Where are they going to come from for Iraq? I think many of his criticisms are valid, I just don't think his answers are convincing enough for me.

MD,

Judging by what he just said on O'Reilly's show, Michael O'Hanlon (the only Dem military expert worth a toss) agrees with you 100%. There will be no meaningful internationalization of Iraq under a Kerry admin. That means most of what he said today was a lie.

Goethean,

You buy a car based on a lot of different factors, but don't discount the value of a good advertising brochure.

I don't belive this...Bush get's caught with his pants down on 9-11 and then he "wars-it-up" to cover his disengaged ass and folks want to reward him?

Osama bitch slaps the spoiled brat and this is heroic?

It was really brilliant marketing, wasn't it? Turning the worst intelligence failure in US history into a stirring tale of manly resolve by Le Dauphin.

The Bush Admin is a story of glorious marketing overcoming normal standards of competence and achievement.

No wonder Kelli likes Bush: it's all about the sizzle.

I know guys who will gladly spend hard money because the salesperson had big tits or is a Christian.

If the salesperson is a Christian with big tits, their wallets are in big trouble.

But if the salesperson is a boring fat Jew...they really do go out of their way to inspect the product.

I just don't understand how perceptions are generated anymore. Al Gore, for example. Somehow, the more radical republicans succeeded in branding him a "liar." Now, you may not like Gore's political positions, you may think he is a stiff speaker, his views on global warming may piss you off. But, during Al Gore's long career in public service he had never been labelled anything close to 'liar.' Some people thought him too wonky, too intellectual, too stiff, etc., but the radical right wing, under Rove's direction, thru falsehoods and sheer repetition, created an image of Al Gore as a liar and we are all the less for it. As all bloggers must be aware of by now, the comment about inventing the internet never happened. Gore talked about his early support of the internet when it was still in its infancy and transferring out of military control, which everyone on both sides of the aisle acknowledge.

Yea, this is ot, but I am stunned with the present 'flip flop' crap. Everyone talking like they have any friggin idea of how Kerry thinks, what his record was. Like it doesn't matter if a bill that contained funding for issue A also cantained funding for palm trees for Alaska, ice berg control off Florida and any other pork you can think of. Rove and company feel free to make these statements saying Kerry didn't vote for issue A funding and all the rats follow suit. Omigod! Funding A! Despite the fact that Cheny may have voted the same way.

My point is that people like Kelli and bithead are part of the rat squad. It is one thing to make a rational decision regarding a candidate based on VERIFIABLE facts. That is to be lauded whatever your political pursuasion. But to simply swallow some of the more outrageous crap whole and spit it back out at everyone like it is fact is really disgusting. I think we all know enough about the facts of George W. Bush's life to understand he doesn't have 'character' in the traditional sense of the word. You may like his sticking to his guns, his wild west approach to the terrorism issue, his supply side approach to economic relief, but let's stop kidding ourselves. Labelling Bush as someone with 'character' is even more of a stretch than labelling Gore a liar.

#23 Character is not the key issue. The War on Terror is the key issue, and most voters are seriously uninformed about the war.

From Iran-Contra, Iraqgate and the associated BCCI scandal, to Tora Bora, the Iraq bait-and-switch of 2002, the attempt to supress 9/11 investigations particularly into Saudi involvement, the Bushes have consistently come down on the wrong side of the terrorism problem, opposed much of the way by John Kerry.

#6 Verifiable facts sink Kerry. He promised to release his military records - NO Form 180.
WHAT is he hiding? He wrote a silly bragging book "Tour of Duty" -- on 9 Dec, he's happy, not having been shot at.
But he got a Purple Heart from a band-aid "wound" that was self-inflicted on 2 Dec.
Zero days in hospital for a 3 PH "hero"??? Or a slacker? - leaving after only 4 months, 12 days, getting a 3rd (first) PH 3 months later.
Zell Miller listed, in anger, a lot of his votes. Why doesn't Kerry run on HIS record? 'Cause he's too liberal/ dovish/ anti-American.

NRO Mackubin Thomas Owens was anti-Kerry in Jan & Feb, but Bush-hate blindness of the Press meant Kerry got a free pass -- the press should have helped the Swifties sink Kerry in the primaries, so it would be Edwards.

Bush-hate blindness has drowned out the real criticisms, like those mentioned above about Bush promises unfulfilled (although he IS spending hugely, not a real anti-spender like Reagan).
See http://tomgrey.motime.com/1093629194#330293

Plus, once we ARE in Iraq, it's pretty clear we have to stay at least until they try for Jan. elections. Kerry and Dems have had over a year to talk about what SHOULD be the policy, and why -- but the Dems are too split. Anti-war blindness leaves too many spouting Dean -- was wrong to go, get out now. Which, in fact, WAS Kerry's 71 Vietnam policy: peace now (and soon genocide) instead of long, slow, fighting and nation building.

Bush says fighting evil is better than peace and genocide. Sounds better to me.