The Kerry campaign is facing formidible opposition. Some of it self created. The "Swift boats for Truth" are made up of people who have hated and despised him since the early 70's when he led the "Vietnam Vet's against the war" and testified before congress on attrocities. He has tried to finesse or avoid dealing with the big issues of the War in Iraq and as a result found himself reacting to the Republicans instead of driving home his arguments and message. And the consequence of this is the "dumbing down" of the debate. People calling one another names, and getting highly emotional. And those in the middle finding that they "feel" Kerry is a phoney rather than sincere. The tactic is the Al Gore Tactic, the "Dukakis strategy." It is Karl Rove at his worst best (see bush's Brain) As long as Kerry lets the Republicans define his game he's going to twist and turn and find knives in every direction. "Waffler" if he expresses a change. Liar if he expresses disagreement. Panderer if he expresses agreement.
If he wants to win, win or lose in the numbers, he's got to "never mind" that stuff, and follow the ex-presidents advice; find his message, express a real vision and make the distinctions clear between what he offers and what the present administration is peddling. Most of all he should listen to the advice of those who know how to win. Not just Clinton, but even Edward Kennedy. And certainly the sagacious Richard Cohen:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19108-2004Sep13.html
As Richard Quotes from Kennedy:
On Friday Kennedy delivered a Senate speech that's worth a gaggle of campaign consultants of the sort Kerry has been hiring in lieu of plumbing his own gut. Kennedy accused the Bush administration of "arrogant ideological incompetence."
And I agree with Richard. I'm proud of some Republicans who have broken ranks with their colleagues. The Virginian Senator Warner is making me proud of Virginians for the first time in many years, by refusing to white-wash the hijinks in Iraq. As Richard goes on to say:
"It's hard to be either more succinct or more on target. The little phrase sums up all that ails both Bush and his administration -- everything from a misguided crusade to liberate Iraq (and the Middle East) from despotism to the strut of the president himself. It fingers the reason why Bush and his boys went to war in Iraq, expecting what Kennedy called "a cakewalk." This was the triumph of ideology over common sense, a belief propounded by neoconservatives within and without the administration that beneath every Iraqi lurked the Music Man, and U.S. troops would be greeted by, at a minimum, 76 trombones. A predisposition to believe your own fantasies makes a very sweet sound indeed."
"In his speech, Kennedy several times mentioned Bush's "mission accomplished" mentality, which "left our armed forces in Iraq underprepared, understaffed and underled for the mission that was only just beginning." Kennedy quotes Don Rumsfeld, who, with his characteristic bluntness, refused to say precisely how long the war might last. But it would not, he assured us, be more than "six months." As for Vice President Cheney, Kennedy has him on the record, too. American troops would "be greeted as liberators," Cheney said. This is the man Bush took on his ticket for his wisdom. "
"The virtue of Kennedy's speech is that it makes clear that all the missteps leading up to the war and all the blunders afterward were not mere mistakes but the product of an ideology that had seized the administration and rendered it inept. The Bushies operated on an expectation of how things should be and not, as governments should, on empirical knowledge seasoned by strong cynicism. They so much believed that things would be as they wanted them to be that they embarked on a latter-day Children's Crusade. Where, oh where, were the adults? "
Sometimes people surprise us. He mentions some I feel the same way about later in his column:
"Once I wrote a column disparaging Sen. Chuck Robb. Later he stood in the Senate and delivered a gutsy speech against gay-bashing and I gladly had to eat my words. Years later, I ridiculed Sen. Bob Graham for the diaries he kept. Now he has written a worthy book damning the Bush administration for its many intelligence blunders, and again I bow in regret."
Others wrote essays today, but none as as succinct and on target. Elie Wiesal wrote one worth reading, but otherwise forgetable. He talks of symptoms but doesn't address causes. David Ignatious wrote a good historical article on Saddam Hussein. And there were other good articles, but once again I have to go with the Cohain of DC whose wisdom is always worth paying attention to.
Chris Holte