POLJUNK

I certainly hope there's gonna be some donkey-punchin.' With 6 years of Bush and twice that of a GOP congress, you'd think there's some ammunition there?

Now regarding that Kerry comment, I always wondered why he didn't run with that, and I can think of only two reasons: 1. He was talking out of his ass and had no backup evidence; or 2. He or his colleagues were complicit in the same shenanigans.

Who needs evidence with a comment like that? You don't have to PROVE criminal behavior in the court of public opinion. This is what the right-wing echo shamber does so well. There are still plenty of people out there who believe without a doubt that Clinton killed Vince Foster.

Kerry should have pounded away at that comment for all it was worth. You can easily make the case that these guys are crooks, even if you can't convict them of it in a court of law.

Right, and plenty of people still believe all that Swift boat bullshit on Kerry.

I'm still impressed and amazed at how savagely and successfully Rove et al attacked Kerry on his strength: his military service.

Nixon would've been proud.

I (respectfully) disagree Jake. The smears were successful because his service was actually not his strength; it was his shtick. He served 3 months active, had some legitimately questionable injuries, came out and testified "against the troops." He pretended to throw his medals away--only to have them show up in his office when it was convenient to be a "war hero."

He all but lost the election when he did that "reporting for duty" bit at the convention.

Now hold on, hold on--I think he served honorably and perhaps even with valor. I'm not making any claims one way or the other--there's too much I don't know. I think it took a certain amount of bravery to speak out against our inolvement in Vietnam. But among the military, Kerry's not popular, and it's not just because of the number Rove did on him. Kerry himself has milked the military thing for more than its worth--and like George Bush in a black church--they weren't buying it. Rove was able to exploit all that. I think it sucks, too, but I can't help but admire the Mayberry Machiavellians.

Let's keep in mind that Gore isn't running for anything, and that the way he makes lots of scratch is by giving speeches. So by acting all miffed, he gets run, and by getting run, he gets more gigs, and by getting more gigs, he gets more scratch. Pretty soon, ol' Al's lookin' like the guy from Exxon in the item directly above this (relatively speaking, of course).

Keep in mind that politics is all about compromise, and when someone gets off that mode and they have any intent of office, they climb right back on and make nice. So Al's not going to get elected to anything gettin' all huffy.

If the Dems are going to have a chance at any notable number of positions going forward, they had best start crafting a message that resonates, something that they seem to have done a masterful job of not doing up until now.

Mac,
I think you're mostly right. But national politics only involves compromise once you're elected. In this polarized climate, you need to pick sides and do it quick. I think the Democrats have tried for too long to fish in the moderate Republican pond. Well, they ain't biting. People are PISSED at Bush and the GOP right now, it's time to exploit that.

But you're right about messaging. Why not rig up a phony rehtorical device like the Contract With America? The Republicans didn't deliver on the promise of that scrap so clearly nobody holds you to it. But it worked as a rally point. It laid out very clearly what Newt's gang "believed" and helped set up some straw men. It was a smart move and the Dems could stand to do the same.