Kerry For President

2003-12-23T06:28:00.000-08:00

All posts can now be found at my new blog here.

2003-12-22T07:32:00.000-08:00

My friends, I am throwing my support behind General Clark. I appreciate the offers I've received from other blogs, but I've decided to continue writing on my own. From now on my new blog can be found at http://clarkforpres.blogspot.com. I will continue to analyze the campaign in general and will offer comments, advice and criticisms to all campaigns, including but not exclusive to Clark's. All comments are very welcome.

Why Clark? He's become a much better candidate and every time I see him speak I grow more confident. I was strongly impressed by his performance on "This Week" yesterday morning. He came out and accused the administration of deliberately misleading the American people. He revealed that Dean offered him the VP slot (a bold admission for Clark, but one I fully believe - word is Dean is campaigning hard for endorsements and Clark's would have been a huge one). In sum, he doesn't appear to back down from a fight.

A larger indication that Clark wouldn't back down came from a "slip-up" on C-Span. A supporter approached him and asked how Clark would respond to slime attacks from Karl Rove and the right. He responded, "I'll beat the shit out of them." I hope he does.

It's further indication that this notion that Dean supporters have that their candidate is the only one who will "stand up to Bush" is basically a bogus premise. I understand their anger, I'm angry. But when the anger is enough to start a grass-roots movement to draft a non-politician into the race, clearly that politician is going to stand up to Bush.

And Clark's indignation is real. My favorite thing about him is his utter disdain for a man I believe is the Devil incarnate - Tom Delay. Check out what Clark's official campaign released about DeLay's little snide remark about Clark. The official campaign went as far as labeling DeLay a "chickenhawk." That's EXACTLY what we need in this campaign, and only someone with the military experience of Clark has the credibility to go after DeLay in this manner.

Here's what Deaniacs sometimes don't get when it comes to their guy. Bush is a probable win, but not a sure win. He's a horrible president on a ton of issues. But Iraq and the war on terrorism IS going to be the dominant issue in this election, period.

So what we need is a candidate to make the case that Bush's aggressive, pre-emptive policy isn't working. That the war on Iraq was sold on the basis of misleading information. That the real terrorists were never in Iraq before the war, only after. And that this preposterous theory that killing them in Iraq is better than killing them here is again a bogus claim of the right, because who's to say those terrorists would ever make it here?

As far as I can see only one candidate can really sell this to the American people, and that's Clark. Why? Because he has enormous credibility.

As many regular readers may know, I'm a dual citizen with Israeli citizenship. A decade ago a great leader named Yitzhak Rabin was able to strike a peace deal with Jordan and initiate the peace process with the Palestinians. Had he lived I have no doubt he would have fulfilled the deal and gone on to make peace with Syria. And the Israeli people were willing to believe it was in their interests.

Why? Because Rabin was a soldier. He was a general who led the Israeli forces into battle in war after war and to victory after victory. If a GENERAL believed that peace was in the national security interests of our nation, then the Israeli people were inclined to believe it too.

Dean has no such credibility, respectfully. Kerry would have had more credibility had he voted against the war and remained consistent.

So the only one whose consistently opposed the war AND who brings the credibility to sell it to people beyond only the most motivated of our base is Clark.

2003-12-18T14:05:00.000-08:00

Before I go on with this post I'd like to say it's one of my last posts about the Kerry campaign. As many of you know I am leaning to supporting Clark, and will make a decision soon. I will definitely continue writing as much as my job allows and will feature links to my writing on this blog (boy, how self-consumed am I?). So, stay tuned.

Two articles in Salon.com today both continue my disappointment in John Kerry and hearten my desire to beat Bush.

The first reveals again how Kerry continues to snipe at Dean, and often in ways that are simply unfair.

Caveat: I'm starting to feel the need to do this every time I make this point, but I'll do it again: THIS DOES NOT MEAN I'M A DEAN SUPPORTER. Phew, okay, done.

A disclaimer about Salon, my favorite publication: they are overt Dean supporters. While never explicitly endorsing him, it's pretty clear where their loyalties lie. But this article is right on the money. Kerry went after Dean for saying the U.S. needed the U.N.'s "permission" to attack Iraq. I saw Dean's speech. He never said anything like that. And Kerry is once again taking something he said out of context and twisting it into a very Republican-like attack on Dean.

I've heard the entreaties from the Kerry supporters that Dean is fair game for attacks and for pointing out policy differences. I agree. Gephardt attacked Dean in a very legitimate fashion, for instance. He said Dean was standing with Gingrich and the Republicans on Medicare in the 90s. While Dean may not have been pro-Republican, this attack does not misrepresent his position. It was the only real attack on Dean to draw blood and it did so because it was largely true.

Kerry's attacks have drawn no blood, however. They come across as petty, and are largely based on misrepresentations or quotes taken out of context. And I don't understand how Kerry's core supporters don't see how it demeans Kerry.

Most of us who at one time supported Kerry and those who still do did so because we felt he was most qualified to take on Bush and be a great President. He still is. But why not run on those facts? Why bow down to petty attacks? Especially when they're clearly sniping at something small that Dean said? Does anyone really think that will make an impact among voters? Voters want to know who can beat Bush. They don't want to hear about "well, another Dem candidate said this and that's bad because of this." Oy.

It pains me that Kerry's supporters can't see the mistake their candidate is making. That they can't see that a man so principled and strong who has sacrificed so much comes across looking like such a small politician when he does this. It's lost my support. But for those still in the Kerry camp, tell your campaign to stop it as soon as possible.

This whole situation makes it incredibly clear that Kerry is in the position he is because he voted for the Iraq War Resolution. If he didn't, he wouldn't be spending his summer having to explain himself over and over.

Here's the crux of the problem: Kerry says, "I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." But that carries very little weight among those who opposed the war. Why? Because they didn't feel he was a threat to begin with. And the lack of WMD doesn't help that perception. To Kerry it was a vote to hold Saddam accountable, a vote which he thought would lead to more diplomacy, a vote which he felt would lead to an international coalition to pressure Saddam to disarm.

But to those who opposed the war it was a vote for war. And why? Because anyone who took one look at Bush knew he would rush to war as soon as possible. Nobody believed Bush would consult the U.N. In fact, he said before the whole process started that he wouldn't have to. It was only Powell who dragged him there to begin with. So to recap: Bush had already clearly shown disdain for the world community multiple times, starting with Kyoto, the ABM Treaty, and then with his statements about how he wouldn't have to consult the U.N.

And after all that, the vote was held. And Kerry voted for the War Resolution. I'm not saying he was right or wrong (personally I think he was wrong), but I'm saying to many anti-war Dems who didn't believe Saddam was an imminent threat and put no stock in Bush's ability to work with the world, it was a blank check for war. Without that vote, Kerry would be in a dramatically different position than he is today.

The other article in Salon.com is exactly the kind of piece that will never make mass media. While the NY Times continue to allow William Safire to write his insane articles attacking the Geneva Peace Conference and, my favorite, the one still claiming an Iraqi-Baghdad connection, Salon.com reveals the truth.

Why do I know in my heart of hearts that this will get no media play? Whatever happened to that brief one month in which they finally held Bush accountable for his misleading? Here is firm evidence that the Iraq-Sept 11th connection is bullshit. Will it get run anywhere? Nope. My heart breaks at the thought.

2003-12-16T06:41:00.000-08:00

Well, Dean supporters are nothing if not motivated. As soon as I mentioned I'm losing my taste for Kerry's campaign I get bombarded with entreaties to switch to Dean. It ain't gonna happen my friends, although I appreciate a healthy exchange of ideas! The following is another letter I wrote to a reader explaining some of the reasons I'm not going to vote for Dean. But at the end of the day, I just am not into the guy. As hard as it is for some of his supporters to believe, I just don't like him that much. Of course, he'll have my vote in a general election, but not a primary. The following are excerpts from my letter:

Unfortunately, I'm not even a little bit convinced about Dean, although I appreciate your entreaties to reconsider him. Let's face it, on the issues, almost everyone is pretty close to each other's position. There's hardly any dem candidate whose policies I wouldn't be happy with.

My problem with Dean is that while is strongly connecting with a large group of new people, he has absolutely zero connection among some very important core Democratic constituencies. Chief among them African-Americans (whose turnout we need in a big way) and Southerners, including Southern Dems. The genius of Clinton was that he could convince these groups that he had shared experiences with them as a person, and frankly, that's very important to them. I've listened to many black friends of mine and read carefully reports from, in particular, southern black and southern democratic movements. They just are having a tough time believing that a rich guy from Long Island who moved to Vermont can really understand their life experiences. On top of that, I know countless, COUNTLESS Dems who were strong supporters of the Iraq War and for whom national security trumps all other issues. They've told me in no uncertain terms that they would rather vote for Bush or not vote at all if Dean is the nominee. They won't even consider him, while they would consider someone like Clark or Kerry.

I don't think Dean is unelectable because he makes mistakes or because he's "too liberal." I believe he's unelectable because of who he is (his background), combined with some of his positions. While he is motivating a strong group of new Dems, he is not motivating the entire base. There are just as many Dems who are turned off by Dean as are turned on by him, if not more. Of everyone I know, all strong Dems, I literally do not know a single Dean supporter, and he rubs us all the wrong way. I am not believing any media hype about his liberal-ness, etc. I am watching how people react to him. What upsets me sometimes about some Dean supporters is that they believe if I don't support him, somehow I'm buying into the criticism from Lieberman, et al. That's not true, I'm more intelligent than that and I can see through hype and take a more nuanced view. I sometimes wish Dean's ardent supporters would too. It is conceivable that I just don't support their candidate at the moment without my being the anti-Christ.

Three last points: 1) Don't believe the hype that the other candidates wouldn't stand up to Bush. I agree the Democratic Party didn't in 2002 and on other instances, but that's over. Every presidential candidate will stand up to Bush, and if you think Dean is the only one who will fight, you're sorely mistaken. These are all professional politicians who want to be president, they will fight. 2) Respectfully, you're living in denial if you believe that his lack of national security experience won't be an issue. Okay, so a group of motivated Dems is propelling him towards a plurality in a crowded pack of 9 candidates, but do you really believe that when it's a one-on-one election with a "wartime" president, this won't be an issue? 3) Of course, I will be with you no matter who the candidate is in the end. I don't like Dean, no one will convince me otherwise. But if he is the nominee, I will of course support him. But I can't let go of the thought that it is a ticket to disaster, and I've heard every argument to the contrary, and respectfully, I don't buy any one of them.

2003-12-15T11:21:00.000-08:00

Time for me to clarify my explanations. Below I am posting the copy of a letter to Pamela, the maintainer of the Unofficial Kerry Blog among other things. Let me say that Pamela and her team do great work. I am fully supportive of anyone who works so hard to support their candidate and hope they succeed.

Before I publish it, let me make it very clear: I am NOT a Dean supporter. Far from it. I like that he's brought new people into the process and generated excitement. But I still don't want him to be our candidate. I'm not going to get into an explanation why here, I've been doing that for months on this blog. But I know too many Dems who would vote for Bush over Dean because they believe Dean is weak on security and they'd rather someone do too much than do too little. If our candidate is credible on that issue, it gives us a fighting chance. But there's more to it than that, read the blog for a further explanation. I'm not here to discuss Dean, who isn't my candidate, but to explain why I pulled my support for Kerry.

Finally, I want to say that I love John Kerry, the man. He has spent his life working for this country. He volunteered for one of the hardest duties in Vietnam and paid dearly for it. He spent 20 years fighting for genuinely liberal causes in the Senate. He has one of the most liberal voting records in our legislature. And Dean needs to stop denigrating his work, and that of other Dems, by putting them all down as "Washington-Insiders." I shudder to think where this country would be without their work. My withdrawal of support for Kerry has to do with his campaign, not my level of respect for him as a man. And I hope I am wrong and he wins in spite of me, because he would make a GREAT president, and a better one that Dean.

Here is my letter to Pamela, all comments welcome:

Hey Pamela,

Thanks for writing, I was actually thinking about you and thought about sending a note to you. I'm glad I can explain myself more fully, and hope you won't be too upset! I've always respected you and your hard work a lot and hope we'll stay in contact even after my decision.

Basically, my decisions came down to two parts. First is the "offline part." I've actually been giving a fair amount of my money to Kerry and then did some volunteering around NYC, meetups, etc. On a broad scale, I've just been unhappy with the Kerry campaign. I've seen Kerry speak when he lets his guard down and is himself and it's great. But I feel he is rarely allowed to be himself, and what comes out is stilted and stiff. As a result, the campaign has had a tough time generating excitement past a core constituency. That was disappointing.

But what was truly disheartening was the constant sniping at Dean. I know that the conventional wisdom is to attack and that it is legitimate to point out policy differences. For instance, Gephardt went after Dean for the Medicare thing and it actually drew blood among the seniors of Iowa. But Kerry's campaign often went beyond pointing out policy differences and went further. The clincher was the e-mail sent out highlighting Dean's flip-flop on the war resolution thing. Now, this may be legitimate campaigning, but it's not pointing out a policy difference and I just don't like it.

And it was indicative of a lot of the sniping they had Kerry do. For instance, Dean once mentioned off-hand that he wanted trade rules to demand other countries meet our environment standards. It was a typical Dean mistake and he didn't really mean it (it's not an official policy proposal). But Kerry started going off about how Dean was going to launch a recession because of that policy...even though it's not really a policy, but just one of Dean's many off-hand remarks.

It's just a personal thing for me, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I know many other people have no problem with it, but I do. I would rather Kerry be above the fray and highlight himself rather than attack another. Clark, for instance, has had better success by staying out of the personal politics. But the others just seem whiney. Especially Lieberman, and unfortunately, at times, Kerry.

But more importantly, it's not working. Kerry isn't improving in the polls or raising more money when he snipes at Dean. His candidacy was based upon the idea that he is the most qualified. And he should tout that instead of going after others. But he kept doing it, even after the big campaign shake-up, and that just bums me out.

Then there is the organization on the ground. Frankly, it's terrible. In NYC alone, at almost every volunteer event I've shown up to, there's been a major SNAFU. Then I would go to the meetups, and what would we do? Nothing. I wanted to talk about action, how we could work on the campaign, write letters, help out, etc. But all they would do is send some rep to talk about how great Kerry is. They never capitalized on our energy. I heard the same thing about other cities. Some folks from here went up to New Hampshire to campaign and said they got no support from the Kerry people despite trying.

So, in the "offline" world, I have two things to give, money and time, and both are valuable to me and I would have hoped to see some sort of return on investment so to speak. But the campaign seems to grow weaker by the day.

In terms of my "online" time, it's no secret I just didn't click with a lot of the online Kerry supporters. My tactics were different. I deeply believed that it was important for the most rabid supporters to acknowledge problems in the Kerry campaign and then figure out how to fix them. I know you had issues with this approach, and I respect that. I always felt what you do is incredibly valuable, talking about the issues, the positive news developments, etc.

But my problem with the core group of online Kerry supporters goes beyond that. It's not that they wanted to highlight the positives, it was their refusal to acknowledge the negatives. To me that's supporting a failed policy, similar to giving a blank check to Bush for a failed Iraq policy. If it's not working, fix it first. But refusing to acknowledge it's not working is a trait I can't stand in Bush supporters, and it's no better if Kerry supporters react the same way to the Kerry campaign. I pointed out the problems not to search for negatives, but to show that they exist and need to be fixed. I never tried to find negatives in the Kerry campaign, to me they were just so evident. Something's not working. Kerry sinks in every new poll. Why not acknowledge things aren't going our way and try to fix it? But just saying everything is fine and the Kerry campaign can do no wrong to me spells certain defeat.

And beyond that, I was increasingly upset with the Kerry supporters' searching for Dean's faults rather than pointing out Kerry's strengths. For instance, that (name withheld) guy who posts preposterous reports on the blog about how "Dean is Worse than Ashcroft!" etc. Digging up trash like that and posting them on the official blog is bad enough, but no one seemed to mind. I once put up a statement saying I condemn the act of digging up dirt on fellow Dems and saying things like Dean is Worse than Ashcroft is just preposterous. And I got killed, everyone rushed to (name withheld)'s support.

Okay, this has gone on way too long, but I definitely wanted to explain myself fully to you. Like I said, I really respect you and all the work you put into the campaign. I wish more people on the campaign were like you, touting the strengths of Kerry instead of digging up dirt on his opponents.

And I still have tremendous respect for Kerry the man. If he is the candidate I would be thrilled, would admit I was wrong, and would rush to his support. But his campaign is weak, the organization is weak, the presentation of the candidate is weak, and it's not generating excitement. I think the truth of the matter is, those of us who have always believed in Kerry are having a tough time that not everyone else sees what we see. We are frustrated that people aren't rallying to someone who would make a great president. But they're not, so something isn't going right. I've felt this way for a long time, have talked to as many people in the campaign as possible, and tried to offer positive suggestions. Throughout everything, I continued to give what little money I could.

But my heart's not in it anymore. I feel continually let down and I don't have enough money or time to put it into a cause I genuinely feel is on the path to losing. I've tried for so long, I really did give it my best shot. I am so passionately opposed to Bush (and unfortunately, am pretty convinced he's going to win), that I have to support who among the Dems actually has a chance to win the nomination and then gives us a fighting chance against Bush. Right now the only guy who really says that to me is Clark. Yes, Kerry would do well against Bush, but I don't see how he wins the nomination.

Okay, that's more than enough. I hope that's clear. I'm sure there are going to be differences of opinion on the matter. I know you've been disillusioned with my tactics in the past. I respect that difference of opinion. I just want you to know that I did more than just bitch and really tried to make positive changes and do what I thought was right for the campaign even when I felt let down by them time and time again. I really did give it my best shot.

-Dan

2003-12-11T06:08:00.000-08:00

For those of you just reading this post alone, go to the main blog page and you'll see a fleshed out explanation of this post.

It's official: I'm withdrawing my support from John Kerry. No, I'm not running to Dean. If I support anyone at this point, it will be Clark or Gephardt. I still have a tremendous amount of respect for John Kerry and believe him to be the best qualified to be president. If he is the nominee, I will be very happy and will offer my wholeheardest support. But his campaign is just God-Awful. The clincher today was an e-mail I got accusing Howard Dean of this and that. Sure, there may be truth to it, but it's fodder for the Republicans. No candidate is perfect. No one has been consistent on every issue their whole lives. These are human beings. Dean is far from perfect, and Kerry can even point out legitimate policy differences with him. But to start digging up dirt and sending it out under the official auspices of the campaign is too much for me to stomach. It's Republican. And once Dean is the nominee, it'll be in the RNC ads.

I think the race is coming down to Dean and Clark. Dean will take the first two states, but Clark can still surge in the Feb. 3rd states. I see no scenario in which Kerry can win. I'll be happy to be wrong, but the game is winning now. That's all that matters. Kerry supporters seem to be too willing to let someone as talented as Kerry demean himself with these pathetic, desperate stabs at Dean rather than focus on the issues.

Anyone with any sense of honesty can see that Kerry's sinking, Dean is rising, and when the fundraising dollars come up, Clark will surprise people with a strong showing.

I'm sorry to those I may have let down, but there's been too much denial and I can't afford to spend my time and hard-earned money supporting a candidate with a flailing campaign one month before the votes.

I want to beat Bush. We should all want that above all. And dividing the Democratic party won't achieve that.

2003-12-02T12:55:00.000-08:00

So there are those who feel that being critical of the campaign is unproductive. That the best thing to do is to be a mindless cheerleader of Kerry no matter what state his campaign is in. Perhaps a fair criticism is that I tend to write more about the bad than the good. Maybe, but I think that's important. I think that's my role. But to not do that is like standing on the deck of a sinking ship saying everything is fine instead of acknowledging there's a hole somewhere and trying to fix it.

I'm giving Kerry a shot. You never know what might happen, and if he pulls this out, it'll be a miracle, but one I'll be happy about. Remember, not a single vote has been cast. With all my criticism, I haven't forgotten it. There is time.

But I'm not too entranced with some of Kerry's online supporters. I've never seen so much denial. Read the blogs, you'll still see, to this day, how "Dean is done," Kerry is in a great position, etc etc. Worse yet is the characters who dig up evil dirt on other nominees, especially Dean, and put them in headlines saying "DEAN IS WORSE THAN ASHCROFT." No he's not, and you know it.

In 1988 Al Gore dug up the Willie Horton story on Dukakis. The Republicans were thrilled. It was a gift that fell in their lap and they used it to no end. Do we really believe that digging up dirt on fellow Dems is a good thing? Do you really believe that Dean is worse than Ashcroft or Bush?

This is a sampling of what is posted in the Kerry blogs. Yet somehow my criticism of the Kerry campaign is more damaging to our cause, huh? The cause is to beat Bush. I like Kerry, but his campaign has been crappy. Am I the first one to think so? How about every major news outlet in the country. So I criticize the campaign and offer some advice on how to improve it. But I get pummelled with negative e-mails about it. I don't mind, I'm not gonna stop. I believe I'm offering realistic criticism and advice. If you don't like it, you don't have to.

But I'm gonna criticize you too. You can be an empty vessel, cheering Kerry onto defeat. You can be even worse and dig up dirt on opposing candidates to provide for the Republicans. For some reason, I still believe I'm being the most useful.

2003-11-21T06:29:00.000-08:00

Almost every day a new interview or article comes out on Salon.com that makes me wish that every person in American were forced to read it every day. Today's Interview with Max Cleland is priceless. Combined with the RFK Jr. interview from a couple days ago, Salon has provided some of the most fair, clearly-spelled out, and damning critiques of the Bush administration. It's hard to imagine intelligent people, let alone Democrats, still believe that Bush is good for national security. But they do, and it's our job to try to convince them otherwise.

4-more years of Bush will leave a shell of the great country that America once was. I firmly believe we are on the downward slop of American civilization, and if we don't change presidents, I'm not sure anyone will be able to fix it.

2003-11-19T07:59:00.000-08:00

Maybe it's time I actually pay Salon.com. Today's long interview with RFK Jr. is worth a year's subscription alone. Its topic is nominally the environment, but in it, Bobby accurately dissects our political system, or media, and nothing less than the entire nature of our free market (oh, and he endorses Kerry too).

It is absolutely brilliant, should be forwarded to everyone you know. Forward it especially to those "moderates" who may vote for Bush. Show them what's happening to our country. It's truly, truly depressing. Combined with last night's Charlie Rose interview with Gore Vidal, I'm convinced we're on the downward slide of American civilization.

As for the Kerry campaign, I'll hold my tongue until I see anything happen with the new management. But it's starting to fade away. The race as I see it at the moment is actually between Dean and Clark. Dean is gaining momentum, particularly in NH. But Gephardt is holding strong in Iowa and if he stops Dean Kerry or Clark has a chance in NH. And with Clark poised to win SC, Dean is not a lock by any means as the nominee. Clark can grab some of the more moderate states. The problem is, on a state-by-state basis, I just don't see how Kerry wins. I'm not sensing any real excitement anymore around the campaign (Kerry blogs notwithstanding).

But, let's see what happens. Things can change.

2003-11-10T06:26:00.000-08:00

The best analysis I've ever read of the current state of the presidential race. What would I do without Salon? It's a depressing article, be forewarned. The premise is exactly right: Bush is beatable, but none of the candidates has captured the passion of the electorate. So while Bush sinks, the Democrats don't rise, and that benefits the status quo.

2003-11-10T06:14:00.000-08:00

Everything still going perfectly? In a long, long overdue move, Kerry fires Jim Jordan and shakes up his staff. This should have happened months ago, the second Dean catapulted to the top. Kerry then should have realized the baloney of the "slow and steadaty" strategy his advisors laid out for him. There are 9 (and for awhile there 10) nominees. To emerge from the pack, one has to be aggressive. Let's hope they blitz the crap out of the remaining two months.

2003-11-07T05:37:00.000-08:00

An entire entry dedicated as a response to one commenter? V from VJ, you should be honored, this one's for you.

First of all, you write that any Dem who doesn't vote against Bush is being irresponsible. I agree. But they don't. Look at Zell Miller for God's sakes. There is such a thing as conservative Democrat. But more relevant to this discussion, there are many Dems I know who are liberal on social issues, but right now the security issue trumps that. I've talked to so many. They call themselves Democrats who believe in strong national security. And they would vote for Bush over Dean because they know Bush won't do too little to attack terrorism. If anything, he'll do too much. And they'd rather have someone who does too much.

Dean's basic problem on national security is this: he never, never, never explains what we he would do to fight the war on terror. He hasn't provided a compelling alternative on how he would fight the war on terror. He said he supported the first Afghan campaign but opposed the Iraq war. Okay, but that's not a policy. And certainly not a compelling one that will appeal to those Dems and Independents who want strong national security. And despite everything, a new CNN poll shows that 60% of people still believe we did the right thing in Iraq. Dean also brings no security credentials that would appease those who may have doubts that he knows what he's talking about.

V from VJ, you are just as passionate as I am about getting rid of Bush. Yes there is a huge percentage of the electorate as passionate as we are. But not nearly enough to win back the White House. There are those who have mixed feelings about Bush, but still see him as the best person to fight the war on terror. Hard to believe, I know, but they're out there, and there's a lot of them. And remember, as I keep repeating, there are more Independents than Dems or Repubs, and these days Repubs outnumber Dems, so just playing to the base is NOT enough to win.

This is why so many of us support Kerry, and others support Clark. On domestic issues, Kerry and Dean and others are very very close to each other, the differences are minor. But we know that in the general election a candidate has to do more than just stand-up to Bush. A candidate has to match him on national security in a way to engender trust with those who believe that's the most important issue. And a candidate has to appear presidential. That's Bush's whole thing. His image handlers try to make him seem strong, presidential, above the fray. That's why there's no access to him, it's as if he's "too presidential" to talk to the press. But Dean doesn't have the temperament to stand up next to Bush and have people say, "Well, he's extremely presidential too. That's a man who exudes strong leadership, and boy does he have a strong vision of national security and a better way to fight the war on terror." You may believe it, V from VJ, and you may want to fool yourself into believing others do too, but they don't.

And now Dean seems to be on a path to the nomination, and I'm scared shitless. I still want Kerry to win. And if not Kerry, Gephardt. And if not Gephardt, Clark. And if not Clark, Edwards. And then, and only then, do I want Dean to win. Of course I'll vote for him, but those who live in denial and believe moderate independents and some Republicans will too (which is what it will take), are fooling themselves as badly as those Kerry supporters who think that all is rosey with the Kerry campaign.

Dean keeps saying the way to beat Bush is to stand up to him. That's not enough. That's just about the campaign. At one point it has to be about what kind of President he will make. Unfortunately, people in this country vote for someone based on who they want to hang out with for four years. And there are plenty of people in this country who would rather see Bush than someone else. But for those on the fence, it takes a strong leader with national security credentials to sway them. And that just isn't Dean, as much as you'd like to believe it. Oh, and don't buy the, "He'll have a strong VP" thing. People don't vote for VP, they vote for President. You really believe people were voting for Dick Cheney?

And one final note for V from VJ on the Confederate Flag issue. You've fallen into the same trap of political dialogue that so many have over the years. You somehow think a defense of Dean is the same thing as attacking Kerry. Two wrongs never make a right. If you read this blog regularly you know that I frequently attack Kerry for his mistakes. Yet, instead of admitting Dean erred in his comments, and even more so in not apologizing in the debate to the man who said he personally was offended by them, you said the Kerry has made offensive remarks too.

Well, gee whiz. So what? How does one thing have anything to do with the other? That's like Bush supporters I know, every time I attack Bush, they start telling me about how bad Clinton was. Those are two different discussions. One person being "bad" doesn't make the other person "good." Why can't they both be wrong or both be right? Unfortunately that's what political dialogue about so many things have been reduced too. When I discuss the Israeli-Palestinian crisis with people and tell them how appalled I am about terrorism against Israelis, they say to me, "Well Israel's tactics are terrible too." But I wasn't defending Israel's tactics, I was attacking terrorism. Why can't both sides admit they're wrong?

So V from VJ, Kerry may have offended you and made mistakes. That's fine, I offer no defense. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Dean made a mistake. Which he did. And he apologized, yes, but I would have liked to have seen it sooner. Not just because he had to apologize to everyone out there he offended, because I am still amazed that when confronted in a debate by a young man who said he was personally offended, he couldn't bring himself to apologize for causing offense to that specific person. That was a mistake, V from VJ, and no matter how many mistakes any other candidates make, it doesn't give Dean a free pass. Oh, and, I meant this blog in the best spirit of political debate, so hope you took it the right way and keep coming and offering your comments.

2003-11-06T08:56:00.000-08:00

So Dean apologized on CNN this morning and also admitted he has a tendency to fight back when confronted. He did the right thing today, but needs to work on nuancing his politics as time moves forward. It's not a done deal, but with the big Union endorsement he's going to get today, the chances go up significantly that he will be our nominee. He needs to start changing his performance ASAP if that's to be the case, since I know far too many Dems who wouldn't vote for him in a Dean vs. Bush matchup.

2003-11-05T08:49:00.000-08:00

In keeping with my constant need for verification, here's a piece from Slate that essentially asks the same question I did last night about Dean. Why not admit an error in language? Dean supporters who read this blog (and I know you're out there), I think it's time to admit a mistake on your guy's part last night. Hey, I spend so much time attacking Kerry's mistakes, it's only fair!

There is a genuine problem with Dean. He's from a small white northern state and needs to find the right way to reach out to blacks. The problem is that he often does so in the language not of someone who truly understands their problems but the language of a guy who studied their problems in college and sympathizes from afar. This is understandable to a point. I can't pretend to understand the plight of blacks in this country either. I'm a northeast white guy who went to a small liberal arts college in the east. So I realize the challenges.

But if a guy says to you, "I was extremely offended" by something you said, wouldn't you at least say, "if I offended you I'm sorry?" Instead, he launched into the plights of white southerners. He ducked the entire question about how to reach out to blacks.

I repeat, we all understand what Dean was trying to say. And of course he's not a racist. But he is coming across, as Sharpton said, as "too arrogant to admit a mistake." That's the same problem with the Bush team, they never admit a mistake, and it's something I hate about them. Dean could have made the same point by simply saying "Poor white people" or doing what Graham did by going after the "Nascar fans." But instead he chose a racially sensitive symbol which at the same time stereotypes white southerners. He used the wrong term. It was a mistake. He could have admitted responsibility immediately and been done with it. I want a president who admits his mistakes and takes responsibility for his actions. To look a guy in the eye who said he was offended by you and not even to apologize for creating offense was a huge mistake on Dean's part.

In sports, whenever a cocky, egocentric athlete does something detrimental to the team, he always uses the excuse, "I'm just being myself, I just need to be me." Which is such utter bullshit I don't know why more reporters don't call them on it. You're part of a team now. You're being paid to do a job. Sometimes you have to subjugate those elements that are just you being you for the will of the team.

I know Dean's the straight-talking guy. But there's straight-talk, and there's presidential straight-talk. And he needs to start thinking through what he says a bit more. He's a front-runner. Could very well end up representing the Democratic party. Millions of people are entrusting him with their hard-earned money. It's not enough that he use the excuse of "being myself" and "I'm a straight-talker." He is part of a team whose purpose is to bring back this White House. I'm not talking about fundamentally altering his personality, but I'm talking about taking a dose of humility and occasionally admitting a mistake, which every human makes.

We already have an arrogant President who lacks any trace of humility. The way to beat Bush is to stand up to him, yes. But also to show what a real "straight-talker" does. Admit mistakes. Be humbled by the position so many people have put him in. This will contrast strongly with the special-interest owned Bush who believes this presidency is his entitlement.

Dean should put out a release today saying, "I apologize to those I have offended, black and white." I'd want the same out of any candidate.

2003-11-04T18:49:00.000-08:00

Kerry won tonight's debate. Dean took some tough hits. Clark improved his standing slightly. I think the best answer to the whole Confederate Flag issue was Lieberman's after the debate when interviewed by Paula Zahn. He said he understood what Dean was trying to say, and it's valid, but his wording was insensitive and he should have just admitted that. That's the most rational response this whole hubub has received. I was upset that everyone jumped on Dean in a way that seemed to pander to the NAACP.

But those who have disagreed with me are right in one major aspect, it was an insensitive remark. I'll admit now that I didn't pay enough attention to that fact in my earlier posts. I only wished Dean admitted he made a mistake too. It's something that drives me crazy about Bush is he never takes any blame and and never admits a mistake. Dean should have just done that tonight. I mean, he was confronted face to face with a guy in the audience who said it personally offended him. Why couldn't he just say, "I apologize, I used a poor choice of words"? Dean supporters, I know what your guy was trying to say, but I realize now he shouldn't have used that condescending and divisive terminology. I know Dean is a straight-talker, but sometimes he needs to be more presidential and think before he speaks. And straight-talkers admit when they're wrong. Dean should have.

And for all my attacks on Al Sharpton, the guy scored the best line of the night by far. When asked what's the first thing he'll think of when he wakes up in the White House he said, "I hope Bush got all his stuff out."

For anyone watching, it was a very good night for Kerry. See? Positivity from Dan, it's possible! I call it as I see it, good or bad, and tonight was good. I was very pleased and hope he keeps it up.

2003-11-04T08:42:00.000-08:00

It's early, but here's some good news. This is a poll in which 4 out of 10 voters say they definitely will vote against Bush. Gephardt does the best in the matchup, but it's way too early to know anything like that now.

Despite everything written here, I am a Kerry supporter. But MUCH more importantly, I really want to beat Bush. I really want that (pardon my French) fucker to go down. I'd pay half of my net worth (not much admittedly) to watch him give a concession speech.

2003-11-03T12:44:00.000-08:00

For those who feel I'm too negative on the campaign and spend my days searching for bad news, let me point out some good news. Today Kerry announced his river protection plan as part of a larger urban renewal/environmental effort. I firmly believe this is exactly the kind of thing that Kerry should focus his time and energy on. Bold visions for the environment to contrast with Bush, instead of petty arguments with other Democrats. I was pleased to see it and hope it's a harbinger of more to come.

2003-11-03T09:15:00.000-08:00

On a separate note, this media bias thing is really starting to piss me off too. I was watching "This Week" with George Stepa...you know. And every time he has a Dem presidential candidate on, he rips them apart. He was vicious with John Edwards the previous week about Iraq, actually interrputing him in mid-sentence with exasperation and statements such as "Excuse me, Senator, but c'mon..."

Then, the day he has Don Rumsfeld on, he and George Will (a conservative yes, but I usually respect him), pitched him softball after softball...and this is the guy who is actually responsible for the disastrous nature of the Iraq campaign (behind Dubya, of course). George Stepawhatever is clearly overcompensating for his Democratic past, but all the more reason why he shouldn't the host of this show. Besides the fact that he is a weak host and the show has gone steadily down the tubes since Sam and Cokie left. And where's the roundtable discussion?

But most infuriarating is George Will couching in one of his questions the statement that it is better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than to have to do it in NYC, D.C. or Madison, Wisconson. We keep hearing this idiotic statement over and over again.

In order to get into America, you have to have a passport, board a plane or drive through a border, and pass through customs and immigration. Most likely, you'd first pass through a European or North American country on the way, and have to pass their controls as well. Then, you'd have to figure out how to get weapons, elude law enforcement and domestic intelligence services, and actually do the attack.

In order to get into Iraq, you basically load up your AK-47 and Bazooka missile into a pick-up truck in Iran or Syria, and drive until you find American soldiers, and then attack them at will. There is basically no border patrol of any sort, no need for a passport or any I.D., no customs, no police, no intelligence...you get the picture.

Can someone please explain to me how it necessarily follows that the terrorists attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq would absolutely be blowing things up in the U.S.? It doesn't, and when someone as intelligent as George Will, conservative or no, includes such banality in his questioning of a man responsible for a fundamentally flawed military strategy, then it further contributes to the dumbing down of an American public desperately in need of wising-up.

2003-11-03T08:10:00.000-08:00

As time passes, the angrier and more disillusioned I get with my party, and with my candidate of choice. The old knock against the Democrats is that they are a too beholden to special interests and must continue to pander to various interest groups. Of course, this statement is replete with irony while the Republicans hand over contracts to Halliburton and Bechtel. But now I'm starting to see what people mean about the Democrats, and it's ugly.

This past weekend, Howard Dean made his infamous "Confederate Flag" statement (which by the way, was made a hundred times earlier but now everyone decides to leap on it). Almost immediately, the Kerry campaign, and many others, jumped all over it, decrying it as racist and insensitive. There's only one conclusion I draw from Dean's statement itself, which is the same one I've made awhile ago: Dean still has no conception of what it takes to be presidential. Sure, he's a "straight-talker," but there are some things you just shouldn't say. And he keeps saying them. But do I think he's racist? Absolutely not. And is there a lot more to what he said than we'd like to believe? Of course.

What Dean was discussing is a strategy to win. We're not going to change someone who puts a Confederate Flag on their car, at least not in the next few months. But would we refuse their vote? Dean basically was saying that between now and the election, we're not going to be able to change American society radically, so in order to win, we need to figure out a way to appeal to those who normally wouldn't vote Democratic. Makes perfect sense to me. Could Dean have used more sensitive language? Of course. That's a different discussion.

But what happened in response was even more sickening to me, especially from Kerry's campaign. Kerry issued a statement saying "I'd rather be the candidate of the NAACP" and don't want votes of people with Confederate Flags. If you believe that Kerry and the others were making principled stands against Dean out of the sincere belief that he was racist and a supporter of the symbolism of the Confederate Flag, then you probably shouldn't be reading this blog. You're an idealist who can see no wrong with Kerry or his campaign, and you will continue to believe that until he loses.

Kerry was pandering to the NAACP. Pure and simple. The same organization that publicly called out some candidates for not showing up at a meeting, and called them "persona non grata." As if Bush has done anything for black people in this country. That event was followed by James Carville explaining that these interest groups are the reason the Dems keep losing. The "NRA doesn't make Bush show up at its meeting and wave a gun." But here we are, in the most critical election year in recent memory and the same special interests are making the candidates pander to them. And Kerry is doing just that.

Of course, Kerry isn't alone in his behavior. Much more unctuous was Sharpton calling black leaders "Uncle Toms" for their support of white candidates. I hope someone (John Kerry) takes him down a peg in the next debate. Call it a "Sister Souljah" moment. But Sharpton's behavior was outrageous. First of all, he should be ashamed for running a campaign devoid of principle, something you cannot say about Mosley-Braun or Kucinich who are actually pushing a real agenda. But to somehow imply that blacks must support black candidates is nothing less than racist. He's partly pissed off that Jesse Jackson, Jr. endorsed Howard Dean. But Sharpton is really pissed off that his candidacy isn't that of Jesse Jackson, Sr. That blacks and liberals aren't rallying around Sharpton the way they did Jesse. Well, that's because blacks aren't idiots Al. You're no Jesse Jackson.

But on a broader level, let me ask you a question. Do you really believe that this is how we are going to beat Bush? By attacking other candidates viciously? Providing fodder for the Republicans to use in a general election? That's exactly what happened in 1988. Al Gore of all people dug up the Wille Horton story on Dukakis. Guess who ended up using it?

Right now I see no clear leader in the Democratic Party, and it's all the more depressing when I see someone as accomplished as John Kerry participating in this blatant pandering. I watched Kerry on C-Span last night, and outside of a debate environment, he was great. He really came across as a strong leader. Then I see him in his debates bitching about Dean, or go to his site and read his blog which attacks Dean time after time (note to Dean supporters, your candidate does the same thing, he's to blame as well, everyone is).

The real divisiveness is not in Dean's statement about the flag, but in the way Kerry and others have reacted to it. Dean isn't racist and isn't a Confederate Flag supporter, and everyone knows it. But what he was doing was mapping out a strategy for victory. And if victory against Bush, a result that would include real help to black people in this country, is gained by getting the votes of some folks with Confederate Flag decals on their cars, then I'll take it.

We're heading down a terrible path here people. Instead of standing up for what he believes in and emphasizing bold, impassioned proposals for the environment, energy, national security, Kerry issues statements attacking Dean for something he said to a reporter. When the candidates showed up in Detroit, an urban center that has been killed over the last few years, instead of providing a bold plan for urban renewal, they attacked one another over something he or she said years ago. Instead of standing above the fray of special interests and being a candidate of broader vision that can appeal to a wide range of supporters, Kerry and others clamor to say, "I'm the candidate of the NAACP," "No, I'm the candidate of the NAACP," and do nothing but divide our party and provide fodder for Bush.

Bush must be salivating at this race. And there's no reason he should be. Polls show it, he's vulnerable. With strong leadership, we could take him down. With unity of purpose and a bold, passionate vision. But we're not getting it, and every candidate is guilty. Including Kerry.

2003-10-29T13:01:00.000-08:00

Here's another posting I'm going to get a lot of push-back from my fellow Kerry supporters, but if anything, I'm the thorn in your side reminding you of all the negatives out there.

I'm at this point completely unhappy with the Democratic race for the Presidency. It's coming down to a three-person race, Dean, Gephardt, and Kerry, with Clark an outside 4th. I've written enough about Gephardt and Clark in the past, so I'm going to focus on Dean and Kerry.

Dean is running a great campaign. And not because he's liberal or for all the traditional reasons, but I think he is going to get absolutely creamed in a general election. Why? Camille Paglia's interview in Salon.com today said it best: He's not presidential. He runs around making bold statements that he continually has to apologize for. He gets really angry when anyone goes after him in the slightest. He's brusk, quick, hot-tempered, you've heard it all before. Forget his electability for a minute. I don't want those qualities in my president.

Here's a direct quote from Camiille: "I don't think Dean is remotely presidential in manner. He hasn't thought any of this through -- the style of presidential authority. You can't just run around wildly with this dour, dyspeptic, sanctimonious persona. Dean's ability to galvanize a wide-ranging electorate is very limited. I don't see how he's going to inspire or attract African-American or Latino voters, or anyone outside white upper-middle-class professionals and the media elite."

Bingo, bingo, bingo. At what point does Dean calm himself down and start offering optimistic vision for the country? The angry thing worked for awhile, but he needs to change and needs to change now. We're all pissed off at Bush, of course, done. Now what? Dean has offered very little now what for my taste. But his staff has run a great campaign so far. I'll say it before and I'll say it again. He's going to get killed in a general election. Killed.

I know, I know, he'll stand up to Bush and all that crap. But guess what? Are you watching the debates? Everyone will stand up to Bush. This Bush-lite argument is empty. I know so many avowed Democrats who would rather abstain than vote for Dean. Period. They don't trust him on national security issues. If you think that people in swing states are going to vote for Dean just because he's angry and will stand up to Bush, you're vastly mistaken.

How about this argument? He'll energize the base, that's how you beat Bush. Read this next statement carefully: there are more registered independents than either Democrats or Republicans. If the prospect of dealing with another 4 years of Bush on its own doesn't energize the Democratic base, then we don't deserve to win. At the end of the day, we need the independents, and very few of them are that liberal.

The answer, of course, is Kerry. He's so far and away the most qualified to be president it's not even funny. And I'm including Bush in that equation. He's got experience on just about every possible issue. And as for key liberal issues, absolutely no one has led on the environment, etc. like Kerry has. It should be a no-brainer. What's the problem?

The problem is this: Kerry's campaign sucks.

You hate to hear it, but c'mon, why are we behind Howard Dean? Why? Why weren't we jumping out with an early lead? There's no excuse. I've heard them all, but they're worthless. Hindsight is 20-20, but so far Kerry's campaign has sucked. This guy is so easily the best qualified candidate to beat Bush, yet the message is lost. Dean effectively painted him as Bush-lite. How is that possible? On most issues Kerry is more liberal than Dean. The only possible explanation is the campaign itself and Kerry's tepid self-presentation. I've heard Kerry when he lets loose, like his great "ass" joke in the Boston announcement, but those moments are far and few between.

You're going to post all sorts of negative comments saying I'm wrong, Kerry is where he needs to be, Dean has peaked, slow-and-steady wins, yada yada yada. I've heard them all before, and here we are, 2 months away from the first vote. And we're in the same place we've been for a long time. Remember a couple months ago when I let loose with a tough attack on the campaign? I got all the comments about how the official announcement will give us a boost, etc. etc. Where is the boost? Slow and steady is fine, as long as we're moving up, but we're stuck in neutral.

When Gore ran in 2000 he ignored his signature issues to suddenly go on a viscious populist attack on the insurance companies, etc. Why did he think that would play? The economy was great back then. Sure many of his targets deserved it, but it was bad strategy. He had some core issues such as the environment that he was eminently qualified to run on, but he left them behind.

It's time for Kerry to run on his core issues. Why not the environment? Most people care about it, he can tie it to energy and jobs and national security, and even many Republicans know Bush is doing a shitty job on the environment? Why not elevate that issue in a big way? He needs to sound strong and elevate himself above the pack.

The simple fact of the matter is, no single campaign is really doing as well as one would hope. The Democrats are divided and disappointing. I can only hope they unite by 2004.

2003-10-27T10:06:00.000-08:00

Does anyone else think the debates are a waste of time? They're really getting old and I'm not sure how valuable Sunday night's was. It did very little to enhance Kerry's stature, or anyone's really. But it did prove once and for all that Leiberman is a bit of a whiny jerk. I mean, I generally like the guy, and appreciate his sense of humor, but he's starting to get vicious on the others and it's bothering me. I read this article in the Village Voice this week about how he is going to end up providing a bunch of ammo to Bush for whoever the final candidate seems to be.

If anything is sure it is that nothing major happened at the debate. Which benefits Dean, he'll keep his front-runner status for the time being. And with all that money, it's time for his opponents to offer something bold. Except for Gephardt's health plan, nobody's really made a splash. Too many of the proposals are similar to one another.

Here are my thoughts:
- Gephardt is once again the strongest debater. He just sounds the most confident when he speaks, pure and simple. I was once again impressed, but the Washington insider thing will dog him until the end, so I'm not sure about his electability.

- Edwards did nothing to hurt or help himself, neither did Dean. Status quo for those guys.

- I'm glad Kucinich is in the race. Why? First of all, he is continually pissed off at Dean for stealing his left-wing thunder, and he lets it out at Dean. Second, it's refreshing to see a far-leftie work within the umbrella of the Democratic party instead of bolting to another party. The extreme right-wingers are all Republicans, so the bigger our umbrella the better.

- I understand the argument for Mosley-Braun staying in the race, but I'm losing the rationale for Sharpton. He claims he's pushing an agenda, but I haven't seen anything particularly bold that he couldn't push forward simply by being the leader he already is. He basically just drops one-liners at this point. Kucinich and Mosley-Braun represent similar far-left agendas, so what does Sharpton add?

- Wes Clark is running for VP. He's a disappointment as a presidential candidate. He's just not vehement enough in his positions, even though he tried hard last night. I like him, but he's not ready for prime time.

- The one attack that was effective Kerry had is that we're not electing a staff, but a president. That's effective because it'll be effective against Bush. In a Dean vs. Bush matchup, people will see Bush as the experienced foreign policy leader, and that's not good. If he is going to go after Dean, Kerry should emphasize his own experience in foreign policy and state emphatically that he's qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

Unfortunately, as it stands, John Kerry is in trouble. I know, you'll hate to read it, but he is. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place on Iraq and can't get out of it. And I'm one of the few people who disagreed with his vote on the $87 Billion. Leiberman was actually right last night, you can't support the war and not pay for the peace. Sure Bush's policy is horrible, sure you can't just keep giving him blank checks, and sure it should be paid for with loans and rescinding tax cuts. But it won't be. So the choice comes down to spending the money or not. There is no in-between. And the right thing to do is to spend the money. If the Iraqi reconstruction doesn't go well at this point, the whole Middle East is in trouble. We have to take a long view on this. What's done is done, but we need to pour billions in there and do it quick. Otherwise it will be a guaranteed failure.

And I, for one, didn't like Kerry's vote, nor do I like the positions of almost anyone on the matter. Including Dean, who again doesn't address how he would deal with this problem. Just saying we need to go to the U.N. is no longer a viable solution. Time is running out and we need to get it right as quickly as possible. I was against the war in Iraq, but I think we need someone who takes a realistic view of the situation as it stands. I worry that Kerry played this one for politics.

I know, almost all of you will disagree with me on that, but that's how I feel.

So, right now the battle in Iowa is between Gephardt and Dean. Then there's New Hampshire which is much more liberal than Iowa. Then there's SC where Edwards has a lead. Where exactly does Kerry win? I see him finishing near the top in many states, but he has to get a couple that he will definitely win early on or he's in trouble. This Iraq issue is dogging him and preventing him from sounding a surer note on the issues he knows best. And every time he attacks Dean in a debate he sounds petty.

Kerry needs to come out boldly on the environment and energy with MAJOR proposals, earth-shattering proposals, something totally new. And he needs to find a way to showcase these proposals at every debate, speech, etc. He needs to take the attention off Iraq and focus it on areas of his strength. And hopefully break out of the pack. Because the way I see it, the pack is getting tighter and more congested, and time is running short.

2003-10-21T11:23:00.000-07:00

Well, after a one-month hiatus, I'm back...It's been a turbulent month for me personally on many levels, which is why I didn't have the dedication or passion needed to make regular or valuable contributions to this blog. In addition, I have been disappointed many times by the Kerry campaign and began to give other candidates a second look. That open-ness continues, but I am coming back to Kerry at the end of the day. So where do I stand now?

So, since we last talked, Graham left the campaign. This may make him a more viable VP candidate. His presidential run was terrible, and it pushed him to say some outlandish things to get the attention of the primary voters. This hurt his overall reputation in Florida, but if the memories of those things fade, he may be more attractive as a Veep. Lieberman I never considered. And the jury is still out on Clark. I wish he came better prepared when he entered the race. His campaign lacks an identity, but I like some of his ideas. It's getting late pretty fast, but I'll keep an eye on him.

Try as I might, I just can't get into Dean. I know he has valuable policy proposals, but they get lost behind his personality and the controversies, etc. And those who think he'll appeal to the middle in a general election are just fooling themselves. I've listened to every argument and read countless articles about how he may be electable against Bush, but I just don't buy any of them. Why? Because so many Democrats I talk to won't vote for Dean vs. Bush. They think he's weak on security, and not just because he didn't want the war. But because he didn't provide a real alternative. What's his vision for fighting the war on terror? It's very real to many Dems, and particularly those of us in NYC. I would, of course, vote for him in a general election. But I can't tell you how many people I've talked to who are lifelong Democrats when I tell them they have to beat Bush, they respond, "And who else am I going to vote for? Dean?"

So that leaves Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards. When I look at Edwards now, I'm actually impressed. If he were as honed in policy, strong on-message earlier in the race as he is now, I might have supported him earlier. He's smart as hell, got good policy ideas, and I actually totally buy the working class shtick. I think that could be very important this year. But I worry now that he's in too deep a hole. But his stock as VP has gone up considerably.

After seeing this article in the Washington Post today, it confirms that I should still keep an open mind for Gephardt. The one thing I know for sure is that Dick has been the most consistently strong debater, and surprisingly so. In every debate I go in forgetting about him, and then when he speaks I'm impressed. The one knock is the career Washington insider thing. That may make him a lot less electable. And unlike Kerry, he doesn't have something else to talk about (military service).

So I'm back to Kerry, with about 60-70% of my heart. But my heart sinks when I look at his campaign sometimes. Every time I log on to his site and see a press release attacking Howard Dean, I squirm. I hate it, Kerry comes off as petty. I know conventional wisdom is attack the front runner. I say, don't attack the front runner, act like one. Even if we're not.

So, a long time ago I promised all readers that I'd offer some constructive ideas for the campaign. I finally have some.

First of all, I say do NOT spend time seeking evidence that Bush misled us on Iraq and jumping all over it. Let the other candidates do our dirty work. The problem with that strategy is that Kerry voted for the war and that many Americans, Democrats included, supported the war. Even if that support is waning, they want a president who won't do TOO LITTLE to fight the war. That's the Democrats problem. People know if anything Bush will do too much to fight terrorism. But they'd rather that than too little.

So, my second point, it is time for Kerry to articulate a coherent, concise, strong strategy on what he would do to fight this war as Commander-in-Chief. Just criticizing Bush or saying "go the UN" isn't enough. What would he do to fight this war? Put himself in the shoes of Commander-in-Chief, look presidential, and say, "Here's what I would do."

In fact, that should become his new motto, "Here's what I would do." After every criticism of Bush, follow up with "Here's what I would do as President." This is the real way to provide a viable alternative, not just to Bush, but to the others who just criticize. "Here's what I would do." Be positive.

Thirdly, stop attacking other candidates, especially Dean. It just reinforces his role as front-runner, and it's not working. Provide a real alternative by him by showing what he lacks. Show that you're strong on security and have a real plan of how you'd fight the war. Dean isn't doing that, Kerry should.

Finally, Kerry's problem in some ways is he's too well-rounded. Everyone else has a signature issue, but Kerry has strengths in almost every arena. This hurts him from getting a coherent message. So it's time to pick your issues and hammer away. I always said Gore blew it by abandoning what he believed in. He had so much credibility, for instance, on the environment. Why wasn't that a central component of his campaign? Most Americans want a clean environment, and we knew Bush wouldn't give us one the second we saw him.

So Kerry should pick core issues and hammer away at them. I recommend these three: 1) Environment/Energy Independence, 2) Jobs, jobs, jobs and 3) A strong, aggressive alternative way to conduct the war on terror.

Develop a concise message and stick with it. And remember, "Here's what I would do."

2003-09-24T07:12:00.000-07:00

My friends, many of you (or maybe one or two of you) may have been wondering where I have been online recently. I returned a few days ago from my travels abroad and since then have encountered a few bumps in the road of a personal nature which have sapped some of my short-term enthusiasm for online politicking.

I do continue to believe that John Kerry, from what I know, would be the best president of the United States. However, I would be lying if I said I weren't a bit more open-minded now about who can best beat Bush. I don't have much enthusiasm for Dean, and the jury is still out on Clark. In other words, I worry that I committed my energies a bit too early, because I, myself, am still a bit uncertain about this election. When I make my ultimate decision (and my sneaking suspicion is it will be for Kerry), I will let everyone know.

But in the meantime there will be a brief hiatus from my online blogging, which truthfully is driven much more by my personal situation than by my political indecision. I appreciate everyone's support during the two months this blog has been online, and I promise to return in the near future when I have the capacity to devote the energy a campaign this important requires.

2003-09-15T03:33:00.000-07:00

Just a quick hello from London, where my international man of mystery tour has taken me next. It's absolutely beautiful here in my world's favorite city (other than NYC, of course). And it's amazing to watch the political processes here and see how much different (i.e. better) they are than in the U.S. The government here is held accountable for its actions, period. Contrast that with our own. Imagine if Bush had to stand up in Congress every week and answer questions from the opposition the way Blair has to? By the way, I think this is a great idea and believe all presidents should be held accountable thus. I'd love the next president to institute that as a Constitutional requirement, I bet it would pass.

I like Blair, I disagreed with him on Iraq, but I believe he was sincere, unlike Dubya. But he is rightly being held accountable for all his actions, and I wish our government were half so transparent.

Anyhow, not much political news I can gather other than the upcoming Clark announcement...should happen any day now. Cheerio! Off to see some theatre!

2003-09-11T02:29:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

Thanks for your well-wishes Pamela and everyone. I'm having a great time here in my other home of Tel Aviv. Not too much to report today.

Just noticed this article about Dean asking Clark to join his campaign. That would certainly be a lot to handle for the Kerry team, let's see what happens. Like I always said, if Dean is the nominee, you can put your life savings on his asking Clark to be the VP.

While it isn't so certain that would be the case if Kerry or someone else got it, he's still on the short list. But it would be unprecedented if Clark joined the Dean team...basically he would be the VP nominee long before any vote was cast.

Real quick on Middle East peace: I certainly agree with everyone that Kerry would be head and shoulders above Bush. Who wouldn't? But the reason I was so taken by what Dean said wasn't simply that it was politically courageous, but it attached the urgency needed to deal with this problem. There will never be the kind of reform we all want in the Middle East without a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and Dean seemed to get this. I'm sure others do as well, but I was impressed he spoke out.

Again, Kerry would certainly do a great job when it came to this issue. I just hope has the bravery to take a stance on it in the campaign that may not be the most popular in the world.

The U.S. can work towards peace and can be more balanced in its approach even while supporting Israel.

2003-09-10T01:42:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone,

Rough day in Israel yesterday. Still, walking around Tel Aviv, you'd almost think nothing happened. People have an amazing ability to move on with their lives here.

I can't overemphasize the importance of peace in this region. For Israel alone it would mean an improved economy, the return of tourism and foreign investment, and a much happier populace. In addition, it would remove one of the excuses many of the world's countries have towards anti-semitism. It's not been a good few years, with blatant anti-Israeli feelings bubling up all over the world, and especially in Europe.

But more importantly, the Israeli-Palestinian issue is THE crux of the matter in the Middle East at large. Every time Bush talks about getting rid of Saddam as helping Middle East peace, all I can think is: "Not nearly as much as getting off your ass and trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue." This is the issue that gets people in this area more riled up than anything. Solving it would remove one major excuse for many extremists and terrorists.

I'm not naive. There is open hatred among many Arabs against Israel and Jews in general. There is blatant anti-Semitism on the news networks of many of the neighboring countries here. Even with peace, I don't think these feelings will just disappear, perhaps not for another generation. The same, of course, applies to anti-Arab feeling here...although the religious Jews in Israel are much more fanatical than the more secular Jews, who tend to be more liberal than even American Jews.

(Sidenote: As evil as Israel is sometimes painted in the world, people should live here and watch the news and see how mixed feelings are. There is open debate on television about the Palestinian issue. There are different newspapers with different takes on it. There is huge internal divisions here with open dialogue and free speech. But there is something else going on in Palestine, where people have crowded into soccer stadiums to cheer the re-enactments of suicide bombings. Where the TV presents one opinion, and one opinion only. I'm not trying simply to attack Palestinians, who I think have enormous potential for democracy and entrepreneurialism. And I am extremely critical of Israeli policies, as are many Israelies. But I would say that there is something to be said for a Democratic country with free speech where many of us mourn the deaths of Arabs while mourning the death of our own countrymen too).

But solving this crisis needs to happen as soon as possible so that the healing process can begin. It's like any argument, the more you let is fester, the worse the consequences.

As long as Tom DeLay, Bush, and the other crazy Evangelicals keep thinking that they are "helping Israel," by doing nothing, the worse it will be. Truth is, Israel needs some tough love just as the Palestinians do. Two wrongs don't make a right. And helping Israel means finding a way to peace, even if it's not what the Evangelicals think of as "helping Israel." (By the way, some question the motives of Evangelicals, who believe Israel needs to exist for the return of Christ, at which point the Jews will be converted or pay for their sins...this is too macabre to contemplate, but hey, I won't put anything past 'em).

Most importantly, people are dying over here. Many of them who never asked for trouble. They need help. And while I criticize Kerry, I have no doubt he would do more to help than Bush has. Because Bush has offered nothing but talk. As usual.

2003-09-09T05:24:00.000-07:00

Dean is right, Kerry is wrong. I'm sitting here in an Internet cafe in Tel Aviv, reading about Dean's statement on the Middle East situation. For those who haven't read it, he essentially said the U.S. cannot "take sides" in the Middle East conflict. Then, under criticism from Kerry and Lieberman, he clarified this by saying the U.S. needs to be seen as impartial for there to be any progress.

He is absolutely right. As an Israeli-American, I back that point 100%. And I am disappointed to see Kerry jump all over it as an opening to get Jewish-American (who are largely wrong on this issue) support.

Of course the U.S. should always support and protect Israel, as the only current viable Democracy in the Middle East, the only country with equal rights for sexes and freedom of speech. But Israel has made mistake and should be held to a higher standard, as should the U.S. The U.S. needs to be seen as an honest broker in the Middle East or there will never be peace. This does mean on occasion taking stands against Israel.

Dean is right on this one. And while I am a firm Kerry supporter and agree with him on most issues, on this very important issue, I applaud Dean's bravery and am disappointed in Kerry's position.

2003-09-06T15:20:00.000-07:00

My friends I am leaving for the next 12 days on a trip to Israel and then returning via London. I will have access to my computers and be posting occasionally. I hope you stick with me and keep reading and commenting well into the future.

And let's keep the momentum going for Kerry.

2003-09-05T06:00:00.000-07:00

Why, oh why, did the first debate have to compete with the first NFL game of the year? As the year will go on, faithful blog readers will see what a complete fanatic I am for pro football. But, I gulped hard and skipped the first 30 minutes of the game to finish the debate.

The debate was a pretty sedate affair in my opinion. Kerry did very well. He seemed strong and confident and presidential, and he certainly didn't make any waves. Which in my opinion is a good thing. I'm delighted he didn't attack Dean. The last thing we need is more vitriole between our two camps. Let Joe Lieberman be the new target, or Denis Kucinich. Wow, were those two desperate as hell last night, attacking Dean from right and left. I still feel kind of bad for Joe. Nice guy. Honest even though his positions aren't popular. Consistent. But flailing at the wind right now.

Can Carol Mosley-Braun drop out of the race? I mean, c'mon now. She actually told Judy Woodruff that she was competitive. In what galaxy? I appreciate she's making a point that a minority woman can run for president. I like organizations like NOW that endorsed her. But time is ticking and the candidates need to get their message out. She is not competitive and is only crowding the field further. Thank goodness Al Sharpton's plane was delayed (that seems to happen a lot...weather was fine here in NYC).

Anyhow, at first glance, I'd say Kerry was the winner last night. But in all honesty, the clear winner was Gephardt. He appeared passionate, knowledgeable, and presidential all at the same time. And he honestly seemed pissed off at Bush. His "miserable failure" line was just right. It got at the total exasperation anyone who knows anything must feel by the incompetence of this administration. That's what the campaign needs more of. Exasperation.

Anger seems too partisan and many of those who hate politics will be turned off. But exasperation is different from anger. You're not just saying you hate Bush, but that Bush is totally incompetent. That's the message we need to get out.

Nevertheless, a strong showing for our guy Kerry and much better than his gravely-voiced appearances of debates past.

On another topic, Salon, which is as always the best reading on the Internet, or anywhere for that matter, neatly dissects the issue of Wesley Clark's potential entry into the race. I'm still all for it, the more competition, the better. And let's show the world that even the military thinks Bush is incompetent.

Time will tell...

2003-09-04T06:25:00.000-07:00

Lots to talk about this morning, so little time. Let's start with some good news, I finally saw John Kerry speak at a rally in a way that got me excited. It was his Boston announcement speech. While essentially the same speech delivered in SC, he suddenly found a well of energy in him. No doubt he was energized by the enthusiastic response of his hometown supporters.

But more importantly, he had some zingers about Bush in there. It sounded like he had some fight in him. He even used the word "ass" when telling a joke (although I wished he had ended by saying, next fall we're going to kick Bush's ass...I'm serious, that line will rock, use it!). Other good ones include (paraphrased, I'm working from memory here): "When I'm President the guys from Enron will be in jail where they belong," and "My Attorney General won't be named John Aschroft."

This is EXACTLY the kind of stuff he needs to be doing. Energizing crowds. Fighting Bush. He needs to ease up on the grand, JFK, I have a vision stuff, and start specifically attacking Bush. That's what Democrats want and that's what they should get.

On another note, the Clark watch has resumed. Yesterday on Inside Politics General Clark finally announced he was a Democrat. But he actually did more than that. He went as far as to say he was proud to be a Democrat and he embraced those things which the Democratic Party stood for.

There's no doubt about it now. Either he's running or he wants to be VP. But he admitted he was interviewing campaign staffers and trying to judge whether it's too late. If it were up to him, he'd be in.

Finally, a welcome moment for Democratic unity yesterday. A Dean-supporter who runs a pro-Dean blog stopped by and left his comments. In essence, he came to say that Dean in fact would back the eventual nominee and so would this blogger and most Dean supporters. I hope he's right.

I did something I rarely do yesterday...I went over to the Dean blog and posted some messages. I wanted to guage their reaction to the New Republic piece I posted yesterday. I am genuinely worried that the passion that Dean supporters have for their guy could lead to a split between the Democrats and another easy Republican win in 2004.

With respect to the Dean blogger who came over here, I still worry. While he and many others (and I believe the majority of Dean supporters) feel as many of us Kerry supporters do, which is we want Bush out first and foremost, there were some die-hards who proved my fears.

Some were saying they would never support Kerry because he supported the war and that's the "line in the sand" they wouldn't cross. There were others who wouldn't support Kerry because they felt he was unfairly harsh to Dean. This latter point is amusing, as no one has been rougher on fellow candidates than Dean. And some simply said they cannot "afford to violate their principles." What a ludicrous statement.

I say the opposite. The only reason they won't violate their principles is because they CAN afford to. Call me liberal (which I am), but I believe that if you have food on the table, healthcare, and a roof over your head, you're not voting for yourself. You're voting for those who are going hungry, have no healthcare, and in some cases, don't have a roof over their heads.

These are people who can't spend their days blogging on the Internet. They're out looking for work. But their lives are made that much harder by Bush, who cuts Head Start funding, who isn't funding his own education mandate, who is doing nothing for health care, who is raising their property tax while cutting taxes for the rich, who is angry about the unfair double-taxation on dividends but doesn't consider the double-taxation of sales and payroll tax.

Those people NEED a new president badly. New policies will make a world of difference to them. And every Dem, even Lieberman, would offer policies better than Bush's.

Still there are those who support Dean (and I'm sure Kerry and others) who "can't afford to violate their principles." I ask them to go tell a poor family that they let Bush win because they didn't like statements Kerry's campaign manager made. Or that the vote on the war was enough to mean that these families had to go hungry for another four years. When I posted that on the Dean blogs, I was shouted down as making "ad-hominum attacks." And before we get on our high horses, we do the same thing to Deaniacs on our blogs.

Democrats must be united. We must attack Bush relentlessly. We must support each other. Let's be principled another day. This time winning is more important than anything. If you think the far right won't support the Republicans because they "cannot afford to violate their principles," you're in for a rude awakening. The other side realizes what it takes to win. For far too long the left has been concerned with being principled, even if it means losing.

The problem is, those of us who are principled aren't the ones really hurt by Bush's disastrous policies. I again appeal to everyone to shelve their high-hats, relax their principles just a little bit, and think of this vote as a vote for the environment, for international relations, and most importantly, a vote for the less fortunate, whose numbers are growing every single day.

2003-09-03T08:59:00.000-07:00

Okay, if I've been consistent on anything, it's my opposition to the Dean bashing, or in fact bashing of any Dems (except the vanity candidates, they're wasting our time). But this tid-bit from The New Republic actually gets me mad.

I have worried that the cult-like following Dean has could be dangerous in that if he loses it'll turn that whole army into Greens and divide the Democratic Party. And now he wouldn't even discourage that?

All of us need to be in this fight together. I ask everyone, including Dean supporters, to call on their candidate to rescind such statements. I've heard him state before that it is "essential" that Dubya lose. I hope he keeps consistent with that statement. We WILL need the support of all Deaniacs if he doesn't win the nomination.

I'm terrified the left in this country will split apart just like it did in 2000. When will we realize that winning is more important than standing on some vague principles? All of us will get much, much more of our agenda accomplished with a Democrat in the White House. And this agenda affects real people, many of whom can't afford to give money to a campaign or blog all day long. Let's remember them.

2003-09-03T07:03:00.000-07:00

And as a follow-up, here's a great analysis of why Dean has captured so much momentum, as well as what Kerry needs to do to get it back (note: Salon requires you view an advertisement to get access, it's worth it). I think this is the best idea I've seen in a long time.

Many have asked me to contribute my ideas to this campaign rather than just criticize it, well, here it is: FIGHT! Attack Bush hard. And the best message? Attack the chickenhawks. John Kerry, if you're going to use your military experience, here's how to use it. Keep re-emphasizing that Bush, Cheney, Rove, DeLay, et al, have ZERO military experience. That will crack the veneer of patriotism and hawkishness they have. Attack their credibility. Remind people that you and vets like you who fought for this country disagree with this president and that his administration "chickenhawk-ishness" insults the honor of the troops.

Wes Clark has articulated this message clearly. And you once did as well. Time to do it again. It's an argument no other candidate (so far) can make except for you. Attack Bush, and attack him hard. Call him a phony, a chickenhawk, a tough-talking wimp. That's how you ignite passion.

2003-09-03T06:50:00.000-07:00

We just can't catch a break. As the Washington Post correctly reports, the announcement yesterday did not have the desired effect because every single press report about it couched it in the context of Kerry needing to catch up to Dean.
It was "floundering Kerry" needs a "jolt badly," etc. etc. This has an impact. It reinforces the impression of our guy as 2nd banana. Pretty much the only thing that gives me hope is that so many people aren't paying attention yet. Having said that, I'm not so sure the same goes for folks in Iowa and New Hampshire. I will not give up on Kerry and will work hard for him. But it's clear the campaign, and more importantly, some of the campaign supporters, especially those online, need a makeover.

Best evidence of this was the announcement speech itself. It was fine. The whole setting was fine. It was the kind of speech that appeals to moderates, Republicans, and the core Kerry supporters. And watching it, I was increasingly convinced that we're going to lose, and lose big time.

Kerry spoke eloquently in the tones of his hero, JFK. A group of supporters sat quietly in the audience, politely applausing at the right moments. There were the vets surrounding him. But there was a conspicuous lack of energy. I remember the Dean announcement, in which throngs of people crowded the main plaza of Burlington, screaming, cheering, whooping for their guy. Kerry's announcement couldn't be more different.

Of course, if you read the comments of the online Kerry supporters, it was somehow the greatest speech ever given and will seal our victory. On perusing the official blogs yesterday, I saw a lot I didn't like. The core group of Kerry supporters who populate the blogs live in complete denial. Yesterday was particularly bad, with certain supporters saying, "Dean is done, kaput, finished." How do they come to that calculation when he leads every poll, in money, and in press coverage? Well, because apparently he has "no ideas" and "ideas win." Ideas win, huh? Is that why Dubya's president of the United States?

Dean is far from done, he is playing this thing exactly right. While Kerry is taking this month to go for the big media blitz, Dean focuses on the grassroots, setting an ambitious goal of surpassing 450,000 members to his site. He'll reach it. And this grassroots movement isn't going away. To say he has no ideas is to insult many of his core supporters. Supporters who are our brothers and sisters in the fight against Bush.

So, the Kerry supporters go on about how we like that Kerry is less passionate and more even-tempered, how that appeals to moderates. Yes, in a general election. This is a primary, and Kerry does NOT have a concise message that appeals to the core Democratic voters. He better get one, and get one fast.

But worst of all, what I saw on the blogs was not just denial, but anger. Anger towards anyone who wanted to openly discuss the state of our campaign. Myself and a couple others were shouted down for discussing our opinions. We were told to "shut up about Dean," as if he'd go away if we would just be quiet about him.

Remember when the war began and those of us who opposed it kept reiterating that dissent does not equal disloyalty, but in fact it is love of country that leads us to dissent? Similarly, I love Kerry and want him to win, but I will dissent when I see his campaign floundering and moving in the right direction.

Kerry's campaign needs to figure out how to ignite passion against Bush. It needs to be a party that people want to be part of. Dean is a rock-star to his supporters, and that kind of passion is infectious.

This leads me to my conclusion: Kerry would make the best president but Dean is the best candidate. Dean's strategy and his campaign are barely making one bad move. And if you think they're support will run away if they mess up, I remind you about the disastrous Meet the Press showing that somehow gave him more support. Kerry knows he cannot ignite the same passion Dean does, so he is now campaigning on the fact that he would be the better president. He's right. But that doesn't win primaries. Neither do ideas alone.

Dean has ideas and he has passion. He doesn't have the stature or experience of Kerry, but if anything's clear, stature and experience isn't enough. Remember, George W. Bush is our president. There's a lesson there. Sure we'd like to not play that game and win based solely on integrity, but I'd rather win, period.

Once again, I make an appeal to the Kerry supporters to continue their enthusiastic support, but lose the denial and anger. Dean is a Democrat. Kerry and Dean have similar ideas on almost every major issue. Attacking him, Dean supporters, and most importantly, Kerry supporters who are honest about the state of our campaign, will only continue us on the path we're on. And that path is leading to defeat right now, we have to get off it fast.

2003-09-02T06:15:00.000-07:00

The Kerry Pioneers Donation site is up, take a look!

2003-09-02T05:59:00.000-07:00

Today's the day! Watch it on TV, or get all the info from the official Kerry site today. Let me know what you think of the announcement, post all comments below!

2003-08-29T06:10:00.000-07:00

No, I haven't lost the faith. I still believe 100% in John Kerry. My purpose was not to say I'm giving up support, but to tell the campaign they have some major work to do.

Last night's Meet-up was nice, if not overwhelming. At least this time someone from the campaign brought pins and a few flyers with upcoming NYC events. A couple folks who were deciding between Dean and Kerry came, and while we did our best to convince them, they were clearly disappointed at the lack of substance at the meeting...no real materials, organization, etc.

On a better note, they did tell us about the Moby/James Taylor concert on the Intrepid Sep. 18th (unfortunately I'm out of town then) and better yet about an effort to bus Kerry supporters up to NH for a weekend of door-to-door canvassing. That's what they need to do more of.

But the small group of 20 or so was keeping the faith. The Today show segment was nice. The media blitz will be good, but what the campaign needs to do is reform the grass-roots element to match the media power. Only then will we be a formidable campaign.

It's not too late. But it's getting late early.

2003-08-28T08:44:00.000-07:00

More great news. The New Republic's headline today is "FREE FALL" and is about the Kerry campaign's failing efforts. Let's hope this is the bottom and we turn around from here.

2003-08-28T06:11:00.000-07:00

After the most depressing day I've had in awhile about this campaign, my depression continues. I was contacted by the Kerry campaign a few days ago about passing out flyers at a subway stop this morning. They told me they would send specific directions before today. They never did. I showed up anyway, and found a couple lone staffers, and no real volunteers. Did I mention this is the second time this happened? Last time some volunteers showed up and no one from the campaign brought us any material to pass out.

Some inside scoop: apparently the regional campaigns, such as the NY office, are getting mixed signals and weak management from the D.C. headquarters. When I said, "Oh, I thought Boston was the main HQ," I was told that's part of the problem. No one really knows. Authority is split. There is no coherent campaign strategy.

This comes on the heels of a day when I pour my feelings out here and on the official Kerry blog about the need to take our weak efforts to date seriously and come up with a new strategy. I don't think I made the slightest impact.

I went to the official chat and what did I see? The same 10 names I always see on the blogs and a campaign chatter giving us no insight whatsoever. I look at the newest posts, and still I read post after post of people in utter denial. More empty rhetoric. "Bush is a nail," "Bring out the Hammer John!" What is that based on? Does John Kerry ever really wield a hammer? If anything, Kerry's not strong enough at pounding Bush, this is why Dean has captured so much support. But still the faithful follow, spitting out empty phrases and baseless optimism.

Then I wake up and read my morning copy of the NY Times and see this piece on the impending entry of General Clark. And you know what? I hope it's true. Here's why:

John Kerry has always been the best-positioned to win. He has the Vietnam experience. He has years of foreign and domestic experience. His environmental record is second to none. He has an enormous number of contacts. He has esteemed Senators like Kennedy in his ring. He should be winning. And he's not.

If he can't get his campaign together to beat a Vermont Governor, maybe another military guy entering the race will finally light a fire under him. Our goal is to beat Bush. I support Kerry because I believe(d) he could win and I believe he is a man of integrity.

But ask yourself this hard question: If Kerry can't win a primary election, how can he win a general election? Bush is a formidable candidate. I still think he'll probably win (makes me ill to say, but true). He has more money than any one, a disciplined organization, and brilliant strategists. It will take a Herculean effort to beat Bush.

But it's no longer enough to say Kerry can win because he has military experience, etc etc. We have to say Kerry can win because he's got the best organization in place to win. Campaigning is a business. It has to have great management and be well-structured. So far, Kerry does NOT have the best organization (no disrespect to any individual members or volunteers). But this is a fact. We can't even get subway flyer-blitzes right and this is months after Dean's people have written 40,000 letters to Iowa and NH voters.

It's come down to this: I'm giving Kerry until the end of September. I can't afford to be led by my heart, I have to go where the best organization is. Everyone who knows me knows I work hard and am passionate about getting rid of Dubya. But I'm not going to waste my efforts.

All Kerry supporters should issue the same ultimatum. The campaign needs to get its act together NOW. Don't tell me "we haven't announced yet." Announcing is a media gimmick, but officially, Kerry's been running for months. A media gimmick won't be enough to change the workings of a grass-roots organization. And that's what the the campaign needs to do.

We can be led by our hearts, or we can identify the fact that our guy's campaign isn't doing its job. It needs to know we feel that way. We can continue to spout our empty optimism and blind loyalty all day, but this will hurt our efforts. The campaign needs to know it can't count on our support forever. We like John, but we hate Bush more.

I know I will make little impact on the loyal Kerry supporters out there. I'm a loyal Kerry supporter too. But wake up and smell the shitty situation we're in right now. Things are not where they should be. Let the Kerry campaign know we're ready to work for them, but they're not taking advantage of us as they should. Let them know if they don't get their act together, they're going to lose their most ardent supporters.

It's time to be realistic. And I will continue to be a voice for realism, no matter how frustrated it gets me.

2003-08-27T12:10:00.000-07:00

Finally some nice news...too bad only Denver folks will see it, but I'll take it. Best parts of this news:
1) $1,000/plate fundraiser - hopefully a lot of people showed up!
2) Great to hear he had a lot of energy
3) Mentioned next week's media blitz...can't come too soon!

2003-08-27T06:41:00.000-07:00

It's time for Kerry supporters to face reality. One look at the top story of the NY Times today reveals the reason. Among other tidbits, we find that Kerry has fallen behind Dean 38-17 in New Hampshire.

I'm upset for a variety of reasons, but not because I'm anti-Dean. I'm not. I like him, I will campaign my ass off for him should he be the nominee. And I no longer think that he will get beat down like Mondale. I still think Kerry's a better nominee. But I'm getting disillusioned with the Kerry campaign and with some of the Kerry supporters.

Dean is angry, anti-war, and has a web site. But it's time for you to acknowledge there's more to him than that. And more to their campaign than that. Sure the grass-roots movement is a phenomenon, but one that has been carefully organized and grown by Dean's campaign itself. Dean does have actual ideas. Dean is more than just anger. And Dean, combined with a guy like Clark, is not a candidate that is going to win only one state. Having said that, I believe Kerry will win more states, but let's not fool ourselves that Dean is a total flash in the pan.

In my opinion, the Dean campaign is doing this thing exactly right. And no, I think anyone who truly believes they're "peaking too early" is completely deluded. Sure they're sprinting across the country in August, but look at the crowds, look at the enthusiasm, and look at the press coverage. Let's be truthful, if it were Kerry doing it the same crowds wouldn't be turning out in droves.

But can that be sustained, you ask? Of course it can. Two major reasons: 1) how long have you been angry at Bush? For me it's been since he was the Republican nominee for president, and every day more news comes out that pisses me off even more. My energy and anger is only increasing day by day, and so will the Dean campaign's. 2) Dean can pretty much raise money at will now. Sure he's spending a lot on TV spots now, but he'll have more later. He just raised $1 million off his web site in a few days. It took Kerry at least as long to raise $140,000 with his "Send W. back to Crawford" gimmick (which, by the way, was unclear and poorly designed).

Don't get me wrong, I love Kerry. I love the prospect of Kerry/Clark. And I still think it could happen. But Kerry is NOT the front-runner. And don't believe for a second that anywhere but #1 is a good thing to be in politics. If you doubt what I am saying, take a look at the Kerry blogs, you'll see the same 10 names over and over again, posting 10-15 times in each topic. On Dean's blog it's hundreds if not thousands of different names.

Two final points: 1) it's not necessarily a terrible thing that Dean is inspiring such enthusiasm. A mobilized army against Dubya is a good thing. CAVEAT: A good thing as long as the Green Party Dean supporters and hard-core left-wingers don't desert the Democratic Party if Dean isn't the nominee. 2) Kerry has his work cut out for him. The crowds that will turn up in SC, NH, etc...are going to be largely manufactured by the campaign and won't be the spontaneous energy Dean generates. His campaign needs to think of new ways of inspiring energy and doing it fast.

I criticize because I love. I think Kerry is a terrific presidential candidate. I believe so because Kerry is in fact the most liberal, progressive of all the mainstream candidates. But I firmly believe that the Kerry campaign and Kerry supporters need a healthy dose of reality. A campaign has to adjust, adapt, and re-load with the changing landscape. They can't just say "we're following our plan," and "we're in a great position." Pardon my French, but bullshit. The Kerry campaign wanted to be the front-runner all along. They have a lot of work to do to reclaim this mantle. It's time for us to wake up and realize some truth. We can continue to delude ourselves, but then we'll wake up one day with Kerry back in Washington as a Senator for years to come.

2003-08-25T14:29:00.000-07:00

TELL ME YOUR KERRY STORY (POST IN COMMENTS SECTION):

What are you doing this Thursday for John Kerry's Campaign? I'm starting the day with the NYC campaign folks, passing out materials at the Rockefeller Center subway stop near my work (come introduce yourself if you're there). Then I'm going to the Cosi downtown for Meetup at night.

WHAT ARE YOU DOING THURSDAY? TELL US YOUR PLANS.

2003-08-25T11:58:00.000-07:00

Big NYC news for Kerry: Local artist Moby endorses Kerry for president and will play a fundraiser on the Intrepid on September 18th (for those who don't know, the Intrepid is a WWII Air-craft carrier permanently parked in the Hudson River as an aviation museum). I doubt I can afford it, but if I can, I will be there! I'm a big Moby fan and nice to know we agree about Kerry. He summed it up perfectly:

"He's the only one who can beat George Bush for President," the bespectacled vegan told us. "It's one of my fantasies to see that debate between Kerry and Bush where Kerry says, 'What did you do during Vietnam?' Bush was a draft dodger, and Kerry got three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star!"

2003-08-25T06:16:00.000-07:00

Nice thorough posting from Ben today on his blog dealing with Wesley Clark. He's a bit more gung-ho on Clark as pres. than I am (I still like Kerry), but I agree with him on one major point:

Clark's going to enter the race. It would be a massive shock if he doesn't.

He's been working the networks like crazy. He's been laying the groundwork talking to the entire Democratic establishment. And rumors are spinning out of control, particularly the one that Donna Brazile knows Clark's running.

This massively changes the complexion of the race and will create for some interesting days ahead. In my opinion, it all but seals the fate of Lieberman and Graham, and most likely Edwards too (even though he insists he'll stay in the race until the end, as he said on "This Week" yesterday). The news might break through the clutter created by the Sharpton's, Mosley-Braun's and Kucinich's of the world.

While this is a fervently pro-Kerry blog, I believe that Clark will be a formidable contender and his entry is almost entirely a good thing. I think it'll take the heat away from Dean's contest and highlight the importance of a military background, which should only help Kerry. When a General enters a race to fight a president whose popularity rests on his alleged strength in national security, it's going to raise eyebrows among those who aren't paying the kind of attention they should be.

2003-08-22T12:18:00.000-07:00

Update on the Kerry Campaign Announcement. I think this will ultimately work in his favor, but using the ship could backfire among the democratic base. We were all pretty skeptical about Bush's use of the ship. Of course, I think it will highlight his military experience and could very well work in his favor, but I think it has to be done the right way.

2003-08-22T07:03:00.000-07:00

Join in the fun and Whack a Ranger/Pioneer today! This fantastic site encourages donations to the Kerry team by getting us to match the fundraising led by Dubya's evil corporation buddies.

Check it out! (soon to be seen on the official site too)

2003-08-21T06:44:00.000-07:00

Great job Pamela for being a Kerry motivator on the Official Blog Site. We need more stories like hers to make its way to the public.

On another note, I saw that the Dean folks were hanging outside a Red Sox game at Fenway greeting the crowd (Boston of course being Kerry's home-town). More power to them, it's a great idea. We need to get our folks hanging outside sporting events and other big happenings. Here in NYC we do handouts at the subway, which is important, but we can do bigger and bolder too...

2003-08-20T14:02:00.000-07:00

More reasons why we can't write Gephardt off. These union endorsements are a big, big deal.

This race is just getting started.

2003-08-20T13:58:00.000-07:00

Just read this interesting column about the war and the election. It predicts that Wes Clark WILL RUN. I tend to agree. I need to wait and see what his policies are, but I'm a huge fan of military experience. If Clark enters, he will quickly become my #2.

The question is this: if Clark runs, who will it hurt most? Many say Kerry, because he can't be the only military guy in the race. Many say Dean, because Dean is no longer the outsider with the fresh face.

Kerry is still my guy, but let's take a step back at the big picture: I believe 100% that Clark entering the race is a very very good thing. Why? First of all, because it adds a formidable candidate as a potential competitor to Bush. Second, the fact that a military man enters to oppose Bush may make many Repubs and independents sit up and take notice that Bush isn't the pro-military man they thought he was. Third, if all these people are so eager to run, something can't be right with the current leadership, right?

Most importantly, it would be a huge news story to re-focus people's attention on the national election and all the criticism Dubya's going to get.

Having said that, I'm for a Kerry-Clark ticket.

2003-08-20T11:53:00.000-07:00

Wow, I just got through reading Kerry's speech on energy independence that he gave in June in Iowa. The best speech he's ever given (that I've seen). It should be required reading for everyone in America.

The problem, of course, is that he actually concerns himself with a long-term problem whereas the American people and our whole system is concerned with the short-term. But, man, would I love to see that energy policy pass.

2003-08-20T06:54:00.000-07:00

REQUIRED READING! Salon.com has printed three separate excerpts from Joe Canson's new book, BIG LIES. If these excerpts are any indication, we all have to buy this book.

It details all the lies of the right-wing propoganda machine. But it does so by relying on facts. It is incredibly well-researched, and if anything, will make your stomach churn with anger for the right-wing leadership. This is the kind of book you can force your conservative friends read and it actually might make an impression. It's not the left's answer to Ann Coulter, because that would simply be someone standing on a rooftop screaming inanities. Instead, this is terrific journalism and a great read. Definitely the must-have book of the season.

(NOTE: Salon.com requires registration or you can view an ad an get a day-pass -- full access to all the articles)

2003-08-20T06:49:00.000-07:00

Our next big task for the remainder of this quarter and the year is fundraising. Why? Dean is raising money like a mad-man. It's going to be astounding how much money he's going to raise. We're not going to come close. But we've got to try. It's nice that Kerry raised the $140,000 or so with that "Send W. Back to Crawford" gimmick. But he needs to do better and aim higher. And we need to help.

2003-08-19T13:42:00.000-07:00

Looks like othes are agreeing with me that Wesley Clark may just be a strong candidate.

2003-08-19T12:55:00.000-07:00

I want to take a moment to ask for everyone to pray, contemplate, whatever you do for the victims of the suicide bombing in Israel today. This is a particularly horrible attack.

As a dual Israeli-American citizen, I hold very critical views of Israeli policies, as do many more Israelis than you'd think. But as much as I have problems with Israeli occupation of Palestine, two wrongs don't make a right. Killing of innocents is wrong in all its forms, and today many schoolchildren were blown to bits. There can be no justification for that in a humane world.

I hope that once President Kerry takes charge we can make genuine progress in the Middle East, because the current situation is truly horrible. There is very little hope left for peace, but we have to hang on for it.

2003-08-18T06:35:00.000-07:00

P.S. for those wondering why I've been so long delayed in posting, I live in NYC, black-out central....

2003-08-18T06:33:00.000-07:00

Another General Clark sighting on CNN this weekend with Wolf Blitzer. I have to say once again, I was impressed. Very impressed.

First of all, despite his attempts to avoid party labels, the guy is a Democrat, at least on domestic issues. He believes in a progressive tax system and is opposed to the Bush tax scheme. On foreign policy issues, however, while he disagrees with Bush, his opinions are rooted in extensive foreign policy experience and a thorough knowledge of history. This is what makes him so strong a candidate.

But what I love best about the guy is that he clearly has no love lost for "chickenhawks." Those are the hardcore warmongers on the Republican side who have no, count 'em, no military experience.

Why was I so impressed? When asked about the criticism he had received from Tom DeLay about his war commentary for CNN, Clark launched viciously into DeLay. Here's what he said:

"When our airmen were flying over Kosovo, Tom DeLay led House Republicans to vote not to support their activities -- when American troops were in combat," Clark said. "To me, that's a real indicator of a man who's motivated not by patriotism or support for the troops but by partisan political purposes."

Is it me or is that exactly the kind of concise, coherent criticism that Democrats have somehow been incapable of making in recent years?

Kerry is my #1, but he should take a lesson from Clark. Keep it simple, concise, and effective. Right now Dick Gephardt is my close #2, but if Clark enters the race, that may change. We shall see. But I am more convinced than ever that Kerry and Clark are in many ways the best possible ticket.

Clark may say he's not a presidential candidate. But if he's out there publicly as often as he is now, it's clear he wants to be a factor. Maybe it's VP, maybe it's pres. But he sounds like a candidate, and he's a good one at that.

2003-08-18T06:08:00.000-07:00

Fantastic post from Tom over at the Kerryblog site about the strong presence of supporters at the Young Democrats convention in Buffalo this past weekend. This is precisely the kind of news we need more and more of. You see what can happen when there is strong grass-roots organization? It creates excitement. Excitement is contagious. This leads to more fundraising, campaigning, everything Dean has been doing.

This all points to one thing: everyone here needs to make an extra push to spread the word, get sign-ups for the Meet-ups, organize more on behalf of our guy John.

2003-08-18T06:04:00.000-07:00

Our man Kerry did very well in Virginia this weekend. I think it's good to get some national exposure outside of the first primary states, but as we all know, Iowa and NH are still key. If he is not either #1 or 2 in both, we're in trouble.

Nevertheless, good press is good press, and that's at a premium these days. It's nice to see the Senator get some.

2003-08-14T12:43:00.000-07:00

Some more Wesley Clark news. Did you see how he mentioned the names of both Dean and Kerry? Seems to me he thinks those are the two front-runners and he's positioning himself for a VP run.

But then again, he still could run for President, who knows? Personally I think any way he is involved is a good thing for the Dems, even if it adds competition to Kerry (who would be "hurt" the most by his entrance as Kerry wouldn't be able to claim that he alone has military experience). If Middle-America sees a high profile general on our side against Dubya, then maybe they'll start to think Dubya's not all he's cracked up to be.

And I'm very much in favor of a Kerry-Clark ticket, now more than ever (only Kerry-McCain is more appealing).

2003-08-14T08:28:00.000-07:00

GOP strategists think Gephardt will be the nominee because of his labor support. I still doubt it, but they have a point. That's a lot of votes that can be turned out. I still think my man Kerry can take the president on better, but if it ends up being Dick, he'll have my support 110% (and in my opinion, we could do worse).

2003-08-14T08:25:00.000-07:00

This article gives one a few moments of worry. The guy is right, it's time for Kerry to get his act together, and I don't just mean nationally.

What Dean gets is you win by winning the first few primaries. Coming in third in Iowa would not be a great showing for Kerry. I wish I didn't have to work and could be there in Iowa helping out, but unfortunately I can't. But if the campaign has anything we can do to help in away, let me know!

2003-08-14T06:31:00.000-07:00

So the California re-call vote has taken some steam off Dean's campaign. There is no question about that. But he's already built a massive grass-roots effort, and the energy of his people are going to keep him one of the front-runners until the end. Having said that, this CA-Recall thing has given Kerry an opportunity to re-group and heighten organizational efforts. When it's over Kerry needs to emerge aggressively and strongly as a front-runner, backed with massive grass-roots support. I'll promise to re-double my efforts. Let's all do what we can.

2003-08-14T06:29:00.000-07:00

Finally some national TV exposure for our guy and what's it about? Steak-gate. Hey, they say no publicity is bad publicity. Right, Ben and J-Lo?

2003-08-13T11:47:00.000-07:00

After seeing this article, I call on Dean to publicly chill his people out in regards to Kerry. Sure he wants to win and use the energy of his supporters, but whether purposefully or not, his campaign has facilitated this battle between Dean and Kerry to the point that his many Deanies see Kerry as the real enemy. A potential disaster.

There are people who actually say that they Kerry isn't a real Democrat or that he's Bush-lite or that they would leave the party if he were the nominee. Excuse me? Are you insane?! The most infamous quote has to be this: "Right after GWBush, I want to beat John Kerry the most."

If the goal is to get rid of Dubya, and Dean truly believes that his opponents in the primary would make better presidents than the one we have, he needs to stop fanning the flames of this fight. I'm not saying he is intentionally injected hatred into the race, but he's not doing much to cool the fire, especially since he's such an intense guy.

Sure, much of this has to do with the rise of an "insurgent" campaign. But let's face facts: a lot of Deanies have their priorities misplaced and are misusing their energies. Why not go to Bush blogs? Why are they on Kerry's blog of all people? Another New England liberal who wants to take this country back from Bush? That's who they should be attacking?!

To quote Johnny Cochran, "It...does....not...make...any...sense!"

Dean's campaign and Kerry's campaign need to tone down the rhetoric and focus all this energy on winning the White House. If done properly, 99% of the Democrats will vote for whoever becomes the nominee. If not, we're going to see more people migrating to the Greens or not voting. In other word, a repeat of the 2000 disaster and everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party.

2003-08-13T06:35:00.000-07:00

The people have spoken, and the blog continues. Some troubling news on support for Bush. Who does this hurt most? Easy: Dean.

Again, I'm not flaming Dean, to me he's my third choice, but that still means he's ahead of many others. But to all those who think his position on the war is NOT a liability, you're just fooling yourselves. Look at the results in this article. Even after the WMD scandal, even with all the U.S. deaths, even with all the problems the war obviously created, 6 out of 10 people in this country still believe it was worth fighting.

War is a big deal. People who support wars usually do so with deep feeling. And with Dean going around the country aggressively attacking the war, it's setting him up for disaster in 2004.

I am not falling prey to the old liberal-conservative argument. I know Dean's a fiscal conservative, blah blah blah. But on this particular issue, he is not in line with a majority of this country. And the minority that opposed the war will ultimately vote for a candidate like Kerry who may have supported it because Kerry is infinitely more liberal than Bush (and on some issues more liberal than Dean).

I won't pretend that I wasn't swayed by some of the pro-Dean articles from Salon and The New Republic that came out a few weeks ago. I won't pretend that some of the "stand up to Bush" arguments didn't give me pause to think maybe I should back Dean.

But as time has gone on, I see the problems more clearly. Those attacking Dean fall into the trap of calling him a liberal. Those supporting Dean fall into the trap saying he's not really a liberal. But they're both missing the point. It has absolutely nothing to do with liberal conservative.

It boils down to only two issues: national security and taxes. And on THESE issues, Dean is going to get killed in the general election. That's why Karl Rove wants to run against him so badly.

Sure there are polls that say people care more about health care, environment, etc than taxes. You know what? Bullshit. People may say that in a poll, but we all know what Americans care about most. Paying low taxes and kicking the crap out of "enemies."

Dean has no national security experience. None. It doesn't matter that Bush didn't either, now he does and for whatever reason, over 50% of this country still trusts him on matters of national security. So they are going to go after Dean viciously on security and it's going to hurt. Big time.

Dean wants to eliminate all tax cuts. In a perfect world I'd eliminate them all and raise taxes on some items and on some income groups. But, besides the fact that what Dean wants would never pass Congress, it will kill him in the election. People can take what Clinton did, running saying he'll raise taxes on the upper class. But they won't accept tax increases on everyone. Trust me. Stir up discussion on a non-Democrat blog somewhere. People don't want to pay more taxes, period.

I'm not attacking Dean as a person. He'll have my support in a general election. But he'll lose, and he'll lose bad. And it's not because he's an alleged "liberal." It's because on the two issues that ultimately matter most to people, he's not in sync with the majority.

2003-08-12T07:55:00.000-07:00

I'm sensing a lot of energy has gone into the John Kerry official blogs, as well it should. I would only encourage people to blog there even more. Having said that, I have a feeling it's taken away from the readership of this blog. I enjoy writing it, but want to share my views. Let me know if you think I should continue the work or dedicate my time to the official blogs. As always, I want to do what's best for the campaign.

2003-08-12T07:53:00.000-07:00

John Kerry did a great job last night at the debate in Philadelphia. He won, hands down. Everyone who reads me knows I'm very critical of our guy and his campaign, but it is tough love. I criticize because I want to help. However last night he won. He sounded good. His messages were clear. He looked strong. He was the most presidential. He was significantly stronger than Dean (which hasn't always been in past debates). It's nice to say something without qualification, and Kerry won last night easily.

The rankings in the debate last night were: 1) Kerry 2) Gephardt 3) Lieberman 4) Dean 5) Sharpton 6) Kucinich 7) Mosley-Braun.

Normally I prefer Dean over Lieberman, but last night, with the exception of his defense of gay civil unions, it wasn't his best performance. Also, while I'm strongly pro-Kerry, I'm starting to re-assess Gephardt. I used to think he'd be a weak candidate and now I'm thinking he'd actually be relatively strong. His niceness and decency are so evident that it would be difficult for anyone to paint him into a corner as a Clinton-esque type candidate. Don't get me wrong, Kerry's my man, but last night had me more convinced than ever that Gephardt is my second choice.

2003-08-11T12:21:00.000-07:00

Good news for Kerry, Senator Biden is not running for president. Having said that, I'm a huge fan of Biden's. He has the ability to boil down complex foreign policy issues into simple language better than any other politician I've ever heard. He has an enormous amount of integrity and is a terrific public servant.

Having said that, Biden's position on Iraq and the world most closely resembles our man John Kerry. It is my hope that Biden throws his support behind Kerry, although it is unlikely he will do so at this early stage. I believe that would be a huge coup for Kerry.

And although I know little about Biden and could be wrong, my gut tells me deep inside he's a Kerry supporter and it was Kerry's presence in the race that ultimately convinced Biden to withdraw.

2003-08-11T08:17:00.000-07:00

Terrific New York Times piece on Kerry. It actually made the front page yesterday. Was very re-assuring on a number of levels.

Which brings up another issue....we should start talking field trip to Boston for his announcement whenever that occurs.

Let me know your thoughts on the article...

2003-08-11T06:23:00.000-07:00

So it's blogger madness over at the official site. Many of the usual suspects we all know are out in force, but the story is the presence of the Deaniacs. It's not really that surprising. We're called copycats. Kerry is derided as being too "Republican," etc etc etc. Not to generalize Dean supporters, but some of them do give that campaign a really bad name.

Dean himself needs to start focusing his anger at Bush and not at the other Democrats. Why? Because far too many Dean supporters are lathered up into such a frenzy that they insist they wouldn't vote for any other candidate and would rather vote for Nader. Which says to meet Dean is starting to allow the perception that he's very liberal get a little out of hand. There is a world of difference between Nader and Dean. But when I see posts that Dems are going to bow out and vote for Nader instead of someone like Kerry, I get very very sad. Firstly because Kerry is hardly a conservative. Secondly because that is why we always lose. Right wing Republicans don't drop out of the Republican party because their man isn't conservative enough, they know they'll get more done working WITHIN the party.

Dean needs to reign in some of his attacks and some of his attack dogs. Passion is good, but the energy is mis-directed. I saw more anger towards Kerry on those blogs than towards Bush. Something is wrong with that.

So go to the Kerry blogs and post something in support of our man. Resist attacking Dean. Attack Bush. That's the goal.

On another note, is this the big re-design we've been promised? If so, it's certainly an improvement, but has a ways to go. I hope they're not done.

2003-08-08T07:43:00.000-07:00

Very glad to see the official John Kerry site has "taken my advice" (yeah right) and posted the numbers of registrants on the site.

Let's help get it to over 200,000 by tonight, tell your friends to go to the site and sign up!

2003-08-08T07:42:00.000-07:00

It's time to inject new life into Kerry's Meetup. Recruiting has slowed and we've almost been caught up by Kucinich. That's embarassing. We're not going to hit the 80,000 Dean has anytime soon, but we should be on our way to 20,000 or so...

Tell all your friends!.

2003-08-08T07:21:00.000-07:00

Interesting article on Ross Perot's aim to get back into politics and his anger at the direction the Bushies are taking this country.

One major element the article missed: Perot endorsed Bush in 2000. Why? Because after examining the candidates, he picked a candidate based "on who was least likely to cheat on his wife." I'm totally serious. Those are his words. Sigh...

2003-08-08T07:15:00.000-07:00

Great speech by the man who would be king, Al Gore. Just the kind of passion that was lacking in his disastrous campaign. With nothing to lose, he suddenly seems like a much stronger candidate.

I think, perhaps more than any other Democrat (including Clinton), Al Gore is the key to winning the White House. No, I don't mean as a candidate. But as a non-candidate with nothing to lose who can let loose searing criticism after searing criticism of Bush until it starts to make a difference. A thorn in Bush's side. A man who says all the vicious stuff the candidates can't and blazes a path for their campaigns. A man who should be prominently featured at the National Convention and as many events in between.

Here's why: Far too many people just hate Bill Clinton, for whatever reason. But Gore can remind them of the prosperity of the Clinton years without bringing out the same level of hatred on the part of the right. Many years have passed and a lot has happened between Monica and now. In those days, Gore suffered from being close to the scandal - it tainted him. But now the only person who really reminds people of the scandal is Clinton, not Gore. And remember, more people voted for Gore than Bush in the last election. They will listen to him, even if it's only a little bit. People have pretty much forgotten Gore's "exaggerations" about dog medicine and the Internet. If a Republican brings it up, you just say "uranium" and it'll shut them up. Sure, people don't attack Bush with the same vehemence for being a liar, but polls show a majority of the country DOES think he exaggerated the Iraqi threat, even if they forgive him for it.

Lots of my friends say Gore should run. Why? I don't know why people think he can beat Bush. He blew it last time, and ran a terrible campaign (even if he technically won). It should never have been that close. I'm sure he learned his lesson, and if he ran again, would be much stronger. But it won't happen, especially not with Lieberman in there.

Gore is a brilliant public servant who's shortcomings as a politician mask the fact that he geniunely wants to serve and make the world a better place. Now's the time to let the non-politician out of him and start ratcheting up the criticism of Bush. The more people hear attacks on Bush from a greater variety of sources, the better.

2003-08-08T07:04:00.000-07:00

Absolutely outstanding! This is some great news, it's great to know there will be some money working for us. I literally laughed out loud when I saw this:
"Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson...contended that ACT's financing indicates that "the Democrats are addicted to special-interest soft money and this allows them to feed that addiction by skirting the spirit of the new campaign finance law."

Pot, you're black. Meet kettle.

2003-08-08T07:01:00.000-07:00

Don't love this news. When I saw that Bush's health care plan came in a close second, I have to admit I got skeptical of the Kerry campaign tally. Do other candidates do the same thing? Yes. Is that an excuse? No. Did our man's campaign look for something flashy to tout? Yes.

To us this is no big deal. And considering Dean can absolutely tank on Meet the Press and his supporters rally behind him, this is minor in comparison. But you know Kerry's going to be slammed by Deaniacs and Bushies on this one, which is a shame. Sure there was some political hyperbole going on here, which exists everywhere. But the spin machine will probably make it look like a major negative. Anyone who tries to spin it badly should take a deep breath and think about their own campaign's errors and similar tactics.

As I said, however, not making any excuses. We want our guy to be above the fray.

2003-08-08T06:44:00.000-07:00

A very insightful post from faithful blog reader and Kerry fan Barry Schaeffer from Anacortes, WA:

The war was wrong, but not for the reasons cited by the Dean folks. Kerry basically understands the reasons for it (which is why his site picked up the suggestions that I phoned in), but they have another fundamental problem. The Kerry speechwriters need to focus their energies on making Kerry policy into sound bites, which is neither patronizing nor difficult.

Howard Dean's problem is that he has never had the responsibility to articulate and implement foreign policy. Peace (in and of itself) is not a foreign policy. Peace and justice must be the primary objectives of sound foreign policy.

You will never convince the American people to elect you by carping from the wings that "I was against the war from the beginning". Most Americans (including me) have always believed that there IS such a thing as a "just war". (Most feel that World War II fell into that mold.) Many Americans (like yourself and like me) had conflicting emotions about the Iraq war, and it's too easy to lapse into a patriotic kind of lazy thinking.

It took me a long time to articulate (even to myself) why I was so angry with Bush about slamming that damn thing down our throats. The really BIG problem with Bush's "preemptive attack" doctrine is that it can be employed by any dictator with an army who can pronounce the word "terrorist"! The Defense Minister of India has already stated publicly that India is within its rights to NUKE Pakistan (in his own words--because of Bush's doctrine of "preemptive attack) and because of the terrorist attacks promulgated on India by Muslim terrorists. You should have seen Colin Powell scramble on THAT one!) The Chinese are sure to use the "Bush Doctrine" to justify attacking the people of Taiwan (who no doubt threaten the safety of the People's Republic). If the Bush Doctrine makes it easier for this kind of regional conflict, is the world safer for democracy?

All John Kerry has to do is make 10% of the electorate wonder if "Maybe it wasn't so smart to attack Iraq without working through the UN?". "Maybe the world ISN'T safer from terrorists??". He never will convince the Republicans, but he doesn't have to. If he can plant the seed of doubt in the minds of 10%, it might be his margin of victory in November.

Kerry could point to the excellent example set by Bush Sr., who built a coalition properly, and didn't start off by announcing to the world that he was on a crusade to effect "regime change". He can even quote from Bush Sr's book about why they didn't march into Baghdad!!

2003-08-07T13:45:00.000-07:00

Surfing through the Dean site, I realized there is some brilliant psychology employed. Here are the main elements I think that make it click...I'm not saying Kerry needs to "copy" them (as Dean folks would say), but I think the psychology behind it needs to be carefully examined:

1) It's all about numbers. By posting the numbers of people signed up for newsletters or meetups, or the dollar amounts raised, the site is challenging Dean supporters to grow that number. When you can see the results in front of you, you want to see how high it can go. So Dean supporters actively recruit other supporters and so on and so on. At this point the Kerry number might pale by comparison, but the growth could be significant. Kerry's captured much of the "non-Internet" audience and probably has room for growth on the "Internet" audience.

2) It's very personalized. The Dean site minimizes the "distance" between Dean and his supporters, and has a tone of "we're all in this together." John Kerry is clearly the more austere and old-school presidential candidate, but a little less distance might help his image a bit. The site's a good place to start.

3) The tone and layout emphasizes the insurgent nature of it. At all times you realize this isn't an established party elite.

I think there's a very savvy design at work, something that taps into the subconcious psychology of the anti-Bush crowd. Nothing can be copied directly at this point, but there are definitely some lessons to be learned

2003-08-07T08:28:00.000-07:00

Found another good Kerry for Pres blog, complete with pictures and more story links. Check it out here. I hope all the blogs can link to each other and start to generate more online enthusiasm for Kerry.

2003-08-07T07:43:00.000-07:00

I'm glad to post a blatantly positive blog entry today. I watched Kerry's town-hall meeting from New Hampshire last night on C-Span. If you read this article you see that a couple people weren't thrilled with some of his answers, but hey, the guy's a politician and you can't please everyone.

But I was very happy with the town meeting and wish Kerry had more of them. It's a good showcase for his grasp of the issues, his eloquence, and most importantly, his ability to be relate to people on a personal level. It makes me look forward to a day when he's the candidate of the Democratic Party. If and when he gets to that point, I suggest the campaign spend $$ on holding and broadcasting town meetings all over the nation.

In 1992, Clinton beat Bush the Elder by being accessible, holding meetings, showing people he "cared." Dubya's a trickier enemy, because people like him on a personal level and enjoy his folksy style of speaking. However, Bush effectively wears the facade of being a regular guy, those of us who actually bother to follow his policies know he could give "two farts in the wind" (as a friend is fond of saying) about regular people. As such, he avoids press contact, tries to show his caring by sending out child credit checks to buy people's votes, and let's face it, would never put himself in the position of holding a town meeting.

This is one of the many reasons why Kerry, if he becomes the nominee, should hold town meetings as often as possible and get them exposure as much as possible, even if it means spending money. Do an MTV town meeting, do a BET town meeting, hell, do a Sci-Fi Channel town meeting.

What this strategy will accomplish is this:
1) It will show Kerry's grasp of the issues.
2) It will contrast nicely with Bush's lack of real exposure to the populace.
3) It will contrast nicely with Bush's planned, and tax-payer funded, photo-ops (and Kerry should say this).
4) It should dispel the notion of Kerry as stiff and aloof. When he speaks formally, the aloof image is reiterated. But when he surrounds himself with people, Kerry seems to come alive.

Of course we need to get him to be the nominee before we can implement this strategy. But this strategy might even be useful in the primary. We just need more exposure than C-Span.

2003-08-07T06:55:00.000-07:00

CALIFORNIA:

Let's all support Pamela, our faithful Californian Kerry supporter, in her fight against the recall. Pamela, if there's anyway someone living across the country can help, let me know.

This is a total circus. As someone living in the other celebrity central (NYC), I can only imagine what it's like to have a movie star running for governor. It's as if suddenly Jerry Seinfeld or Gwyneth Paltrow ran for mayor of New York.

It's amazing to me someone with cash can hire people to get signatures from disgruntled Pic N' Save shoppers and now they're trying to replace the governor with a conservative Austrian body builder.

This is setting a terrible precedent in the Democratic system. It's going to be a mess, Florida 2000 all over again. All Californians who read this, please vote no on the recall. It's time the Republicans started winning elections fair and square, and this is not it.

2003-08-07T06:43:00.000-07:00

A NOTE ABOUT THIS BLOG:

I'm very grateful for the amount of readership, comments, e-mails, etc. this blog has received, considering it's been up for less than a week. It was and will continue to be my intention to stir up honest, analytical debate about the state of the campaign and how our favorite candidate, John Kerry, can improve himself.

Having said that, I want to encourage everyone who reads, comments, e-mails me, etc. to really focus on dispassionate, critical analysis. While I would never discourage anyone from posting their feelings, it is my hope that this site NOT become a cheerleading site.

Most of us are convinced John Kerry is the best possible candidate. We all want to get rid of Dubya and realize we can't afford to lose this election. We all have our own thoughts and advice for the Kerry campaign.

But John Kerry and his campaign are not infallable. They have problems and kinks to work out. And other campaigns aren't all bad either. Remember, it is essential Bush loses and for this reason I believe we should focus on Democratic unity while reiterating why Kerry is best-positioned to win.

Finally, I have no official connection to the Kerry campaign. I am a volunteer in New York city and will do what I can to help, but I have no connection to the higher-ups of the national campaign. If I do speak to them, and I hope to one day soon, I would encourage them to read this blog and take some of our analyses to heart. From your comments it is clear the readers of the blog are intelligent and analytical and have great ideas.

But I have a full-time job too, and this blog is my form of service to the campaign I care about. I can't go too far above and beyond what I'm already doing to reach the Kerry folks, as my time is limited and I have a personal life as well.

So, to recap, please keep reading, commenting, e-mailing, and spreading the word about this blog. It is my hope that readers of this blog who support Kerry can think of new ways to help hone and spread his message, that readers who don't yet support Kerry will change their mind, and that the Kerry campaign see the energy and enthusiasm of its supporters and find new ways to capitalizing. All I ask if that you keep your comments as thoughtful as possible, refrain from SHOUTING TOO MUCH, and help spur some genuine debate.

Having said all that, let's go John Kerry!

2003-08-06T09:14:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about the Vice-Presidential thing some more. Almost everyone I've talked to says whoever the nominee ends up being (Kerry), he should be Graham to get Florida. But then I saw a poll recently that Graham's popularity WITHIN Florida has plunged dramatically. And he sometimes comes across as odd or worse, kooky. I like the guy, I agree with most of what he says and he seems incredibly nice. But I'm no longer convinced he's our ticket to winning Florida.

I still like Wes Clark because of the national security issue. I also like Joe Biden, but he's almost too qualified to be Veep and if it's Kerry that'll be two northeasterners running together and Bush would have a field day attacking them. Time will tell.

2003-08-06T08:54:00.000-07:00

So I watched the AFL-CIO Presidential Forum on C-Span last night. Overall, I thought our man Kerry did a pretty good job. He had some nice lines and generated some passion and applause. Note to Kerry aides: tea with lemon next time. It's the second debate in a row he's had a sore throat.

A lot of thoughts from the forum. First about our man: the trickled on line is great, keep going with that. Also, he stumbled onto something big with his health care speech. At one point he said that the tax advantages of it will amount to ten times what families get from the Bush tax cuts. Now THAT'S a message that resonates with the American people. As is the fact that he served in the military, it's such a big strength it can't be denied.

The one big applause line of Kerry's that I hate is "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in America." Okay, so I get what he's saying. Dubya's a big hypocrite for calling firefighters, cops, etc. heroes and taking away their funding. But what does that have to do with Baghdad? If we didn't give away hundreds of billions to the rich, it wouldn't be an issue. And since we're in Iraq anyway, we clearly DO have to finish the job and build it into a society. Is Kerry suggesting we don't build firehouses there? It's a neat line semantically, but it's bad policy.

Still, as a whole, with the exception of the throat thing, he did fine. He looked presidential, had no major screw-ups (like Graham's big hesitation at answering the first question asked him), and didn't get into a squabbling match with Dean - although he did dig into Lieberman's health care plan.

As for the other candidates, the one who actually impressed me was Gephardt. I saw more passion that I did from him in awhile. And while most agree he's too wimpy to take on Bush, his decency is so apparent that no one could impugn his character a la Clinton. At this point, if someone asked me to pick a second, I'm surprised to say I'd go with Dick.

Dean was his same old-self and his shtick is starting to get a bit tired. It's time for something new than just "standing up to Bush." His base knows this, we know this, it's been established. Time for him to create another message.

Kucinich - how do people give him money? It's not just that he could never win. It's that he could never BE a president. Why? Because he has never once spoken a word. He yells every single word. Who thinks that a person who yells everything could be president? Enough to generate over $1 million apparently. Crazy.

Carol Mosley Braun - drop out now. Your presence is diluting the real candidates. Sharpton is similar, although at least he wants to start a movement to register new African-American voters. Braun has basically admitted she's there simply to BE a woman running for highest office. Libby Dole beat you to it. The stakes are too high now for your symbolic campaign, we need to focus in on the real candidates and beat Bush, get out.

Nothing earth-shattering happened, which is good and bad. It's time for Kerry to get his act, and his throat together, and really deliver the command performance we know he's capable of. Last night was an improvement over the South Carolina debates, but he's not quite there yet.

2003-08-05T11:37:00.000-07:00

Latest Dean news from the Today Show. I'm starting to get worried about his position on the war, not because people will think he's a pacifist, but because I'm certain most Americans ultimately supported the war, irregardless of what happens now.

I've been out there reading a lot and I'm convinced that Americans are starting to separate the war from the peace and the WMD issue. I think people are starting to believe that Bush could be screwing up the peace, but that doesn't necessarily mean the war was wrong (for humanitarian purposes, etc. etc.). I'm not speaking for myself, mind you, personally I was largely opposed to it (but with mixed feelings, like a lot of people).

Read this amazing article from Salon.com, perhaps one of the best articles I've read in recent months. It speaks about the confirmation bias, the phenomenon anyone who's studied psychology or business management knows well: it's when someone first makes a decision and searches for evidence to confirm that pre-existing bias. Most Americans supported the war. After the war is over, very few of them are going to change their minds. They'll come up with a new justification for it (well, it's humanitarian, not just about WMD).

Therefore, Dean's position on the war makes me nervous. It's a gamble that ultimately assumes people believe we were intentionally mis-led and will change their minds on the war. I don't think they will.

That's my long-winded way of saying, I think Dean's position on the war will be a liability in a general election, but not for the traditional, "he's a lefty pacifist" reasons we often hear.

2003-08-05T11:28:00.000-07:00

If the first comments to this blog show anything at this point, the message is: Kerry, hire Patti in your campaign! The woman's got enthusiasm!

On another note, thanks to Kathleen for pointing out this article from the Boston Globe on an apparent split in the Kerry camp on how to approach Dean.

My advice to Kerry is to avoid any overt attacks on Dean at this point. The Dean vs. Kerry feud could turn both front-runners into losers by starting a war in which both bleed each other, opening the door for a weaker candidate to slip through. Also, when Kerry becomes the nominee, he WILL need the enthusiasm and organization of the Dean supporters, and this "war" has already bred too much animosity between the two camps.

Kerry needs to hammer away at Bush with a positive message. Instead of "I'm against Bush," or "I'll stand up to Bush," Kerry should say, "Wouldn't it be great if our country had this instead of this?"

For instance, "Wouldn't it be great if we had massive investment in alternative energy instead of an environmentally harmful policy that increased our reliance on foreign oil?
Wouldn't it be great if we got foreign countries committed to the war on terror so that terrorists would be stopped before coming to our shores? Wouldn't it be great if we had an economic program that created more jobs beyond the one's Bush has lost already? There's no reason not to have these things, and when I'm president we will have them."

That message contrasts well with Bush, focuses on the positive, hits the center and the left well. This message, along with continual reminders of Kerry's military service to our country and national security experience, should do the job.

Also, Kerry needs to ultimately appeal to the extreme left, explain to them that they will get more of their agenda accomplished if we actually win the election. But his message cannot solely be that he's the right man to win - right now, as
Slate rightly explains, all Leiberman is doing is explaining why he is the attractive candidate without actually being an attractive candidate. Kerry needs to do both.

If I can accomplish one thing in this blog it is to encourage Kerry supporters and Dean supporters to realize that the two candidates are very very close on most issues, and either one is a massive improvement over Bush.

2003-08-05T08:17:00.000-07:00

If you have kids and are due for a rebate check from the government and can afford it, I think this is an amazing idea. I think we need to spread the word!

2003-08-05T07:07:00.000-07:00

Any comments, link suggestions, thoughts....let me know!

2003-08-05T07:03:00.000-07:00

After Kerry announced his e-protest of Bush's work rules, the Dean campaign retorted that Kerry was ripping off their ideas. A visit to the Dean blog reveals lots of posters snipping that Kerry is trying to use the Internet too suddenly.

This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the Democratic Party AND the Democratic voters. Rather than focus on the true enemy, Dubya, and his horrible idea to cut out overtime pay, they fight with each other. Rather than see the hypocrisy in a man who cuts taxes to "give people their money back" then finds a way to take that money away, they snipe that another Democratic campaign is stealing their ideas.

It's clear that early campaign supporters of the Democratic candidates tend to be upper middle class, educated folks. How else can one explain the fact that they bicker about such minor issues when real people are going to be viciously hurt by this policy? The fact is this: the more candidates out there raising awareness of Bush's sneaky, underhanded policies, the better. Let's fight the true enemy.

2003-08-05T06:49:00.000-07:00

If you don't already read KerryBlog you should, it's a great resource for news articles on our man.

2003-08-05T06:41:00.000-07:00

I saw Howard Dean on Larry King last night following the release of the new Newsweek and Time with him on both covers. I had a few thoughts. First of all, of course I agree with him on many of the issues and will happily vote for him and support him if he is the nominee. Second of all, for all the talk of Kerry's aloofness, Dr. Dean is stiff as a board on TV. Third, I'm not sure if I agree with him that the only way to beat Bush is to "take him on." Well, I do and I don't.

The American people want a strong person for president, and of course that means being strong and standing up to the mis-guided policies of Dubya. But the American people also want a positive message and they want to like their president. It's why Clinton won (at first), it's why Dubya "won," it's why Bush the Father lost. It's amazing how much personality plays into it when policies should be the real issue, but it does. And Dean has a long way to go to seem like a likeable guy that average Americans will embrace. There needs to be more to him than just "standing up to the president." That works well in the primary, and if he can truly change his personality and message in the general election, then he's got the right strategy. The problem is, with so much exposure now, the general electorate is being exposed to his message. Check out the transcript of the Larry King interview here.

As for the whole Kerry vs. Dean thing, it's far too early to know what will happen. Many pundits are ringing the death toll of the Kerry campaign because of Dean's strength, but there's a long way to go, and if anyone's positioned to do well in the long-term, it's Kerry.

But for us Kerry supporters, we've learned one thing: you won't win any betting contests by underestimating the Dean campaign. It's time to get our act together and show some real enthusiasm. I know it's out there.

By the way, two things Dean said that I liked: one, the Democrats need to reach out to the electorate that's never voted before and get the disaffected liberal groups like the Greens to vote Democratic. Whoever the nominee is can't win by just playing it safe like Gore did. Second, Dean said it was "essential" that Bush not be our president anymore and that he would support the eventual nominee. This is the kind of Democratic unity we don't see enough of.

2003-08-04T13:50:00.000-07:00

Welcome to a new John Kerry unofficial blog. There are other blogs out there, which I will certainly link to. But I think it is important for Kerry supporters to show the enthusiasm which we know exists, and blogs are a great way. The more the better.

Some have said they want Kerry to "act like Dean." I believe Kerry should be Kerry, but his campaign should do more to capitalize on the grass-roots enthusiasm that exists and Kerry supporters should act more like Dean supporters.

As such, this blog will take an open, honest assessment at the state of the Kerry campaign, and won't be afraid to be critical. It will be constructively critical, all in the aims of helping the campaign achieve its ultimate goal.

With all the talk about Dean, I believe Kerry is still best positioned for the long-term goal of winning the nomination. However, Democrats shouldn't quibble between them, but be united in the goal of defeating George W. Bush.

No talk of moderate vs. liberal, etc. I encourage candidates to be themselves, put out their own policies, and direct all attacks squarely on Dubya. Only a united Democratic Party can win.

If you have any comments along the way, link suggestions, or would like to help, let me know!.

-Dan, your friendly Kerry supporter/blogger