Wednesday, 28 April 2004 - 11:45 AM EDT

Name: Tony

Where the hell was this guy in January? During the primaries everyone and their brother conceded the fact that, love him or hate him, Kerry was by far the most electable candidate of the bunch. Did Kerry change during the past few months in some way that has made him un-electable? No. He's always been un-electable, but being one of nine helps to hide your warts. Now that he's all alone, Democrats are starting to see Kerry for what he is -- the Ed Muskie of his generation.

The problem is not with Kerry. The problem is with the party. The Dems don't have alot of people in their bullpen right now. John Edwards -- please. Howard Dean -- a national punchline these days.

Whoever the Dems put up, (and rest assured it will be Kerry, imagine the media cloud that would hover around a candidate installed rather than nominated) will be unable to defeat George W. Bush, because the party itself will hog tie the candidate to a series of policy positions designed to please the party's interest groups, and not the country at large.

Did I want John Kerry? No. Will I vote for John Kerry? No. Can the Democrats really do better than John Kerry? Sadly, No.

Thursday, 29 April 2004 - 3:11 AM EDT

Name: Sean

I've finally figured out my dilemma. I don't particularly like Kerry, but I don't want (ahem. "Diabolical Genius") Rove's style of campaigning (read: medals and ribbons and the Internet to win either. I'll even throw in Dean's ridiculed speech, although he was a probably a goner at that point anyway. Nobody should benefit for destroying thier opponents based on crap.


The reason they don't have anybody in the bullpen and that no one worthwhile wants the Democratic nomination is literally any stupid thing you said in your entire life can be used against you. Next thing you know you're on the Today show:

"I'm going on record right now, Ann, that I took only my fair share of JujuBees from my wife at the Terminator 2 screening in question."


Rove realizes this. That's why they let Bush talk as little as possible. This is why we need more than a two-party system. With these smear tactics lobbed at more than one opponent, people would be hit over the head with negative campaigning and maybe, just maybe, tire of them. Oh, and there would be room for non-establishment candidates.

Thursday, 29 April 2004 - 8:07 AM EDT

Name: Marc

At this point, I don't think there is any alternative to the nit-picking of presidential candidates lives. So there is all the more reason to closely inspect people during the primary process.

The Democrats forfeited this opportunity by compressing the primary schedule and forgoing any kind of attacks against each other after the Iowa primary. The result is that Kerry was nominated without being thoroughly vetted. So now instead of John Edwards and Howard Dean pointing out Kerry's flaws in a relatively benign fashion, you've got Karl Rove using those flaws to destroy him.

This is why we need more than a two-party system. With these smear tactics lobbed at more than one opponent, people would be hit over the head with negative campaigning and maybe, just maybe, tire of them.

There is something to that. In a multicandidate race, the candidates who go negative tend to destroy each other (Dean and Gephardt in Iowa), while those who stay out of the mud benefit (Edwards and Kerry). But in a two-candidate race, negative advertising is generally effective.

Thursday, 29 April 2004 - 8:46 AM EDT

Name: Marc

Kerry's problem is that he is congenitally unable to give a yes-or-no answer or to stick to a story. He thinks that he will always be smart enough to find a way out of every damaging statement he has ever made.

The whole medals issue would have died years ago if he hadn't tried to take credit for throwing the medals at some times, and deny doing it at others. One answer or the other would piss some people off, but at least some people would like it. Kerry's problem is that he makes everyone unhappy by trying to have it both ways. Almost no admission is so damaging that it isn't better just to come out and admit it. That's the moral of the whole Clinton era.

Mickey Kaus (who has been on Kerry like stink on a monkey) has a link to a piece from a Vietnam-era buddy of Kerry's, warning him not to run from his past:

But mostly John Kerry is suffering from a condition that strikes liberal Presidential candidates the moment they begin to taste it?"it" being the shock that they might actually hear "Hail to the Chief" whenever they walk into a room, if they play their cards right. And that means: don?t seem too liberal, and explain away, deny, revise, trim or flat-out lie about all past events, beliefs and statements that got you the Democratic nomination in the first place.

The funny thing about that quote is that John Kerry would deny that he is even a liberal. Interestingly, that piece confirms another old charge, first raised by the Nixon administration, that Kerry was drinking brandy in a Georgetown apartment while the other veterans were sleeping on the Mall following that famous protest:

We repaired to the walnut-paneled library, liberated a bottle of vintage brandy from an antique cabinet, and plopped down on expensively upholstered couches and easy chairs. As combat boots settled on what looked to be a George II coffee table, our leader offered a solemn toast:

"Brothers who didn?t come home."

Take a wild guess as to whether Kerry is admitting to this charge or sort-of-denying it.

Friday, 30 April 2004 - 4:14 AM EDT

Name: Sean

Rove is also the artist of the "Whisper campaign," which destroys reputations for no reason whatsoever. Under these kinds of tactics, Ann Richards was a lesbian and John Mccain had an illegitimate Vietnamese daughter. McCain's experiences in Vietnam also made him sick in the head. Could snap at any moment.

Digging up dirt is one thing, but this type of campaigning takes your worst fear about a candidate and gives it a perverse substance.