Kerry vs. Dean

[Shira]

The problem with Dean is that he was right after the capture of Sadam and he is right now. As to Kerry, he does not care too much about what a woman like me is thinking. He knows very well that I badly want to get rid of Cheney-Bush and I’ll certainly vote for him. All his concerns are about the three million undecided voters in the swing states (and justifiably so). The question is if it was not better that in his acceptance speech he would have said to these voters what the NYT suggested: “Yes, I voted for the war in Iraq and it was a mistake of mine. I was misled by the president. My mistake was that I believed him”.
I bet that in his heart Kerry knew very well that all the WMD stories and the linkage between Sadam and al-Kayda were nothing but a super-spin. But Kerry is a political figure surrounded by professional political “experts” who cautioned him that the three million undecided in the swing states would not like a vote against the war. Were they right? We’ll see on 11/03/2004.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The question is if it was not better that in his acceptance speech he would have said to these voters what the NYT suggested: “Yes, I voted for the war in Iraq and it was a mistake of mine. I was misled by the president. My mistake was that I believed him”.

That would be total and complete suicide (even if it is accurate).  When you're trying to convince voters that you're fit to be the leader of the free world, telling them that you can be misled by someone not even in your own party is a bad idea.

I bet that in his heart Kerry knew very well that all the WMD stories and the linkage between Sadam and al-Kayda were nothing but a super-spin. But Kerry is a political figure surrounded by professional political “experts” who cautioned him that the three million undecided in the swing states would not like a vote against the war. Were they right? We’ll see on 11/03/2004.

Kerry doesn't have to talk about the war, except in vague terms like "We should only go to war if we need to..." and "We will work with the UN and respect the will of the international community..."  He doesn't have to go all fire-and-brimstone against Bush on the war, because anyone who already feels that way is going to vote for Kerry anyway.  His challenge is to reach out to middle-America moderates who may not like Bush, but also need assurance that the alternative isn't some left-wing radical in disguise.

[AuH2O]

Kerry was briefed on the intel. Either

1) He's even stupider than Bush, because Bush both had the same info and convinced Kerry it was legit or

2) there was every reason to think it was legit.

It's that simple.

Funny how the Israelis are glad we attacked Iraq, and now the Israeli lobby wants to put in Kerry to make sure the Iraqi state isn't rebuilt. Impressive job, I must say, except Kerry will lose.

[Shira]

Kerry doesn't have to talk about the war, except in vague terms like "We should only go to war if we need to..." and "We will work with the UN and respect the will of the international community..."  He doesn't have to go all fire-and-brimstone against Bush on the war, because anyone who already feels that way is going to vote for Kerry anyway.  His challenge is to reach out to middle-America moderates who may not like Bush, but also need assurance that the alternative isn't some left-wing radical in disguise.

I very well understand your point and I am not critisizing Kerry. I dont know what is the best way for Kerry . We will all be smarter after 11/2.

[Niles Caulder]

I have to disagree with Beef on this point:  Kerry cannot get away with vague.  If he's going to win this thing, he has to out-vision Bush on foreign policy--sticking his head out of the hole to take the hits of specificity while looking calming, steely, and undetered.  It's the only way to nail the image in the public's mind that he's strong enough to replace Bush, regardless of who's right on a subject frankly almost no voter is qualified to judge.

This "we must restore our ties with our allies" and "I would have had a plan to win the peace!" will not cut the mustard.  (Or this one: "We shouldn't be openning firehouses in Baghdad and closing them at home."--drives me up the wall.)

Foreign Policy IS the election this year--voters know it.  They're going to size him up in terms of his ability to Defend specific policy (not just attack it) more than most candidates have had to before him.  Know doubt he'll make an outstanding effort at the debates.  But the soundbites won't substitute.

[Shira]

Bush "loves" terror and it's his favorite topic he prefers to talk about.
While the voter mind is occupied with this issue, the healthcare issue, for example, becomes secondary.

[??????????]

Bush "loves" terror and it's his favorite topic he prefers to talk about.
While the voter mind is occupied with this issue, the healthcare issue, for example, becomes secondary.

"Have you forgotten how it felt that day...
To see your homeland under fire
and its people blown away..."

[MODU]

I have to disagree with Beef on this point:  Kerry cannot get away with vague.  If he's going to win this thing, he has to out-vision Bush on foreign policy--sticking his head out of the hole to take the hits of specificity while looking calming, steely, and undetered.  It's the only way to nail the image in the public's mind that he's strong enough to replace Bush, regardless of who's right on a subject frankly almost no voter is qualified to judge.

This "we must restore our ties with our allies" and "I would have had a plan to win the peace!" will not cut the mustard.  (Or this one: "We shouldn't be openning firehouses in Baghdad and closing them at home."--drives me up the wall.)

Foreign Policy IS the election this year--voters know it.  They're going to size him up in terms of his ability to Defend specific policy (not just attack it) more than most candidates have had to before him.  Know doubt he'll make an outstanding effort at the debates.  But the soundbites won't substitute.

I'm waiting to see this book of Kerry/Edwards view of their 4 years (which it appears has less to do with details and more biographical).  However, it would be something.  Kerry has been very lax on providing details or even clear goals if he were to become President.  This is probably why his polling numbers were so poor following the convention.

[Niles Caulder]

Yeah, those election-year books are a hoot, aren't they?  I remember them as early as '92--Perot's "United We Stand," and I believe Clinton had one as well, didn't he?

I hope Kerry makes a decisive effort with the book.  Judging by the history of these publications in general, this probably isn't the forum in which to expect it.

I wouldn't call Kerry's numbers poor in these circumstances, but I agree they probably could have been a little better.  But he did the job he needed to do with his acceptance speech--he's in fine shape for the time being--although the recent attacks on Bush for failing to clairvoyantly adopt the 9/11 Commission's plans prior to their recommending them seems a little ludicrous to me.  Sure, these ideas have been swirling around before--but so have many others much more favored by the Bureaucracy.  The Comission itself is a necessary componant of these reforms; regardless of which party has the White House.

Talk about getting off on a tangent.  Bad Niles!  No no!!