What Kerry Should Do

[andyfox]

1) Forget about Vietnam. People don't want to hear about it. "John Kerry Reporting for Duty" was a bad idea. John O'Neill has been hounding him for thirty-five years, did Kerry think he'd stop now? With questions about his medals (both his earning of them and his throwing of them) and with tape of him as a (relvatively) long-haired (relvatively) radical talking about Genghis Khan, it was a lose-lose issue.

2) On Iraq, Kerry's position is essentially the same as Bush's. He (and Edwards) voted to give the president the power to invade. And they said they thought Saddam had WMDs. Instead of saying it's the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place (or whatever he's said), say the war in being fought inaptly and ineptly. There was no planning for post-war by the inner circle. And what planning was done by the outer circle was deliberately ignored by the inner circle. Point out specific tactical mistakes (disbanding the army; relying on Chalabi). Use the Rumsfled known-unkowns tape.

3) On the war on terror in general, again show Bush's ineptitude. Show him saying to Matt Lauer that it can't be won. Point out the disaster that is Afghanistan. Ask why Omar Mullah hasn't been brought to justice. Find some statistics and facts from Iraq that make things look bad. (Madelaine Albright was excellent on this on Jim Lehrer last night. Then again, they had Henry Kissinger, who sounds like a Mafioso consigliere, making the case for Bush.)

4) Hammer on the economy. Most people don't understand the deficit as a percentage of the GDP or adjusted for inflation. Harp on the fact that there was a surplus when Bush took over and now there's a "record deficit." Keep citing the $422,000,000,000 or whatever the number is. Under Roosevelt there were more jobs when he left than when he came in. Under Truman. Under Eisenhower. Kennedy. Johnson. Nixon. Gerald helmetless Ford. Etc., etc. The poverty rate is going up.

Keep it simple. Show Bush saying A and then point out B.

And don't be so pontifical. That slow, strong cadence sounds like he's lecturing, talking down. Just like Gore spoke. People don't like it. Bush is sometimes a bit too homey, but it's much more effective than Kerry's style. It's hard to like Kerry; give them less reason to dislike you.

No charge for my services, senator.

[adios]

IMO he's basically attacked the administration on Iraq and the war on terror. He needs to be clear and definite how he'd conduct a "war on terror" and why it's better than what Bush is doing. He needs to be clear about his own exit plan in Iraq.

Every time that guy get's into droning with platitudes galore mode I'm to the next channel.

He needs to be more "presidential." For instance during the recent Russian events he needed to go on the air in his best blue suit and do some tough talking behind a podium and field some questions from the media. He needed to act like he was president. He missed a golden opportunity. I noticed today that he gave a speech on foreign policy where he was wearing a suit and was behind a podium. I watched for 2 minutes expecting that I'd hear some substance but he droned off into super platitude mode at which point the channel was changed.

[GWB]

Kerry needs to do more windsurfing. He has to buck up that "I'm the new JFK" image.

[MaxPower]

He should just take Clinton's speech from the Democratic convention and use that as his stump speech.

[Matty]

He had to establish himself as a wartime president. Granted he doesn't hold an advantage there like he does on domestic issues, but it was essential to establish himself the way he did. He had to get through that period where the American Public was getting to know him without becoming scared of him.

I agree that he should now now focus on domestic issues. He does too. That's why he's hired Sasso and some other former Clinton men to drive the new message.

[Abednego]

I don't think it would hurt him if he cut his hair in the short style so popular today (not to mention the considerable amount of money he would save) and then maybe even grow a gotee and get a tatoo. Al Gore got a piercing when he found out Bush got a Dick Cheney but the beard came just a little too late.

[nolanfan34]

This is spot on. What's sad is that you can sum up an effective strategy for him in 4 paragraphs, while millions of dollars worth of campaign workers can't seem to do it.

I can't fathom why he isn't hammering harder on presenting some sort of plan or exit strategy for Iraq. That's what people want to hear - when are we getting out of there. Don't harp on why we ended up over there, show some vision and give people something to believe in. It's not that hard.

[Abednego]

Yeah ..... especially the enemy

[andyfox]

He does drone. Again, it reminds me of Gore when he does that.

Not good.

[andyfox]

Good point. It does indeed look silly when a 61 year old man windsurfs.

You, OTOH, look quite fit, healthy and handsome. This will come in handy during hte debates to counteract your opponent's height advantage.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
He had to establish himself as a wartime president.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, a wartime President who was against the only war in which he was an active participant. Also he is against the war in Iraq after he voiced his agreement to it in Congress. Pesky things those Congressional records, bet he wishes audio, video, film, computers, pencils and paper had never been invented. Methinks he has a great deal more work to go if that is one of his objectives.

[ericd]

Herbert Hoover, Herbert Hoover, Herbert Hoover. Make him become the Willie Horton of this campaign.

[Gabe]

The Presidency is like jury duty and I don't want my fate decided by someone who wants the job.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
He does drone. Again, it reminds me of Gore when he does that.

Not good.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people comment that Bush is not articulate, and that being articulate is a necessary asset for a President. I don't fully agree with the latter, but being articulate is certainly a necessary asset for getting elected President, especially in the modern era of TV campaigning. The fact that Bush beat Gore certainly says a lot about Gore as a candidate, none of it good. I think that Kerry has the same negative image as a candidate that Gore had. Gore came across as pedantic and indecisive; he never projected the image of a leader. And with both Gore and Kerry, I get a very strong feeling that they would do and say anything to get elected.

Nearly everyone either loves or hates Bush. I don't think anyone had much emotion about Gore one way or the other. I think the same applies to Kerry. He is an innocuous suit and hair-do droning anti-Bush platitudes. I would dearly love to see a viable alternative to Bush, but Kerry ain't packing the gear. I can't imagine Kerry leading a walking tour of historic Boston, let alone leading the country.

(I did just imagine Kerry leading a walking tour of Boston, with Teresa in his ear, "Tell them about that house, John. No, that's not right, John. Turn left here, John. Walk faster people, we have dinner reservations with the Ambassador.")

[cjromero]

I agree with all of Andy's points. It represents a nice battle plan that should be followed. The problem is that Kerry is simply not up to the task. He isn't likable. He doesn't connect with voters. Even the Democrats that support him don't really like him. They would vote for a corpse so long as it isn't Bush. Kerry is simply not capable of talking to the American people in a simple and straightforward manner about why he wants to be President and what specifically he would do differently than Bush.

He comes across more and more like Al Gore with each passing day.

That is not an attack on his qualifications for the Oval Office, just on his ability (or inability) to deliver his message effectively.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Herbert Hoover, Herbert Hoover, Herbert Hoover. Make him become the Willie Horton of this campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny you say that. I was in North Carolina a few weeks ago and thought that I was smack dab in the middle of Bush country and Someone called Bush a "Hoover Pig".

[Utah]

I found this post so funny. Every post I see like this makes me feel just a little closer to my new hundred dollars /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
did Kerry think he'd stop now?

[/ QUOTE ]
Kerry had been immune from criticism on this his whole career. He had every reason to believe that it would work again - which it almost did. Bush couldnt touch him and the veterans didnt have a voice. The swift boat attacks were pure political brilliance and they completely blindsided Kerry.

On Iraq, you are ignoring your own advice to keep things simple. I bet 95% of America has zero idea who Chalabi is. They only care about deaths and who they think is winning. Unless something changes in Iraq, Kerry simply cant win here. The voters have been heard on this and they support Bush, albeit marginally.

On terrorism - The voters have been heard on this and they support Bush by a huge margin. That is not going to change unless there is an attack (and an attack might even favor Bush). Afghanistan is not seen as a disaster at all. In the voters eyes, the Taliban is gone, very few soldiers are dying, and they have a constitution. Additionally, the military kicked total ass when they invaded the country. This is a source of American pride. For Kerry to attack here would be a HUGE disaster.

On the economy - its all local. People worry about their personal situation and they are far less worried about GDP numbers, job creation, etc. If they have a good job and feel secure - vote incumbant. Are they out of work or feel insecure - throw out the incumbant. The reality is that the economy is now doing fine and unemployment is very very low. There are issues. However, given the actual situation Kerry cant make much headway unless a report comes out showing the economy going in the wrong direction or showing that jobs are being lost.

On Personality - People like Bush. People dont like Kerry. Hell, the democrat base doesnt even like him and Kerry has little ability to connect with people.

Kerry is simply toast unless there is some event to change things.

[tolbiny]

unemployment is very very low

Since when is >5% very low for unemplyment?

[andyfox]

John should hide Ms. Hienz-Kerry for the duration of the campaign. Strange person.

Our longtime mayor here in L.A., the late Tom Bradley, had a very strange wife as well. Though Bradley was mayor for twenty years (elected five times), you never saw his wife. She was completely hidden.

[Utah]

Lets look at the data from 1980 to 2000. This covers both the prosperity of the Reagan and Clinton administrations.

15 years had a higher annual unemployment rate than the current rate of 5.4. 1 Year tied.

The rates of the 5 years that beat 5.4 are: 5.3, 5.0, 4.5, 4.2, and 4.0.


5.4 is a very good unemployment rate.

http://www.rescueamericanjobs.org/articles/pdfs/usa_1964-2003_unemployment.pdf

[andyfox]

"Every post I see like this makes me feel just a little closer to my new hundred dollars"

That's because you are.

On Chalabi, he doesn't even have to mention his name. Just say they immediately airlifted a convicted embezzler into Iraq and he immediately started giving secrets to the Iranis. There's plenty of bad news from Iraq. Focusing on the 1,000 deaths and the $200,000,000,000 is a good start.

I don't agree that talking about Afghanistan is a mistake. Kerry has to show people how we were diverted and detoured from our attackers. The Taliban is in control of large parts of the country, other warlords controling virtually all of the rest of if. Poppy production is skyrocketing. Kerry can agree with the attack on the Taliban and Al Qaeda while showing why it was wrong to lose our focus.

All politics is indeed local (Lyndon Johnson?). The "are you better off now than you were four years ago" tact can work for Kerry because, again, there's plenty of bad news to focus on.

As for his personality, that's hard to change, since one's personality derives from other people's perceptions. But he can be coached on how to speak in his sound bites and at the debates.

I think it's a bit premature to turn out the lights; the party's not quite over yet. Things don't look good for Mr. Kerry, but who knows, there's still a long way to go and Kerry has $45,000,000 to spend.

[andyfox]

"When Mr. Bush took office in January of 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2%. Now, after we have 'turned the corner' it is 5.4%, nearly thirty per cent worse than it was when he took over. Rather than having turned the corner, we're standing on the corner, watching all the jobs go by."

I hope Kerry lurks here.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
John should hide Ms. Hienz-Kerry for the duration of the campaign. Strange person.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I may borrow an anatomical allusion from Mike Matusow, methinks John doesn't have the biggest pair in that household.

[Abednego]

Is it true that he has to slap her on the bottom to get her to come?

[Chris Alger]

He should tell Americans that it doesn't make much difference whether he or Bush gets elected, that both will shepard more imperialsm, more war, more terrorism, environmental degradation, more inequality of income, wealth and opportunity and generally letting capital markets dictate policy. Then he should quit and become a monk.

If he wants to win, however, he needs to go quickly negative hard, beginning with a commercial showing Bush sitting in a classroom doing nothing while America was being attacked, and then lying about how he learned about the attacks and unilaterally deciding to go to war without even consulting the country or even his staff (according to Bush). He needs to tell Americans that Bush is out golfing while their kids are getting killed, throws away education money on Haliburton and Iraqi torture chambers, has created more terrorism, and done more than anyone to turn America into a hated warmongering target because he's too mean, reckless, dishonest and stupid to be President. Most of all, he needs to stop posturing as someone who's simply above the cruel arrogance that Bush embodies and to start attacking it head-on as kind of treason and social cancer.

[Utah]

Well, why hasnt Kerry made a huge issue of the unemployment rate? Because he cant as its a non-story. 5.4% is still excellent and he isnt going to strike fear in anyone talking about a 5.4% rate, even compared to a 4.2% rate.

However, he can make hay out of lost jobs - which he has. Lost jobs sounds a lot better than arguing about rates. However, again, he can only make so much out of this because only 5.4% are out of work and the majority of that is really just the natural unemployment rate do to people switching jobs, people moving, etc.

[Utah]

What would you have the country do? You throw a ton of negative comments at the U.S. but I never hear the solution from you.

To be honest, I think you make some very good points inside all that hate. I believe it is true that the U.S. kills a lot of people to protect its way of life. However, barring a better solution, I guess I dont think that is terribly bad. I saw Tommy Franks on TV and he asked, "what were you willing to do on Sept 12, 2001 to protect your way of life?"

So, what is your solution? Do we back out of International affairs, do we not go after nations or terrorists until we are attacked? Do we not use our military might to bring stability in the world? Wouild you immediately pull out of Korea, Bosnia, Germany, etc? Would you tell the world to fend for itself as we are no longer in that business?

[ QUOTE ]
Bush sitting in a classroom doing nothing while America was being attacked

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the reasons that liberals and Kerry are going to lose. While the liberals think he has led an awful campaign against terrorism, the overall voting population thinks Bush is better suited to lead the war on terrorism by a huge margin. While, in reality that might not be true, the voters think it is. The liberals just cant help themselves in bashing Bush hear and they are in denial.

[ QUOTE ]
has created more terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any evidence to back this up or is it mere speculation? Last time I checked we hadnt been attacked since we took the war to the terrorists. That could be correlation and not causation, but I doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
done more than anyone to turn America into a hated warmongering target because he's too mean, reckless, dishonest and stupid to be President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? How so? Who hates us? Do we not have any allies? Do you not think we just gain a new friend in Russia in the war on terrorism?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

He hired Sasso. That means he intends to get down and dirty.

[BadBoyBenny]

Do you think that rhetoric would win over the independents and moderates?

[Cyrus]

Hope you have recovered from that nasty shock!

"What is your solution? Do we not use our military might to bring stability in the world?"

You truly think that American military presence is bringing stability?! Even if that could be argued two decades ago (Cold War and all that), the idea is now absurd!

"Would you immediately pull out of Korea, Bosnia, Germany, etc?"

Yes, why not, what would happen if the Americans evacuated Germany? Less lousy dancing in the Berlin discos, maybe. In Bosnia, it's the UN that's guarding the peace so the US leaving wouldn't be a big deal. And in Korea, the sooner the two countries are united, North and South, the better for all of us. (Any active diplomatic initiative on Washingotn's part towards that objective? I didn't think so.)

"Would you tell the world to fend for itself as we are no longer in that business?"

What "business" might that be? The Ignorant SuperPower's Destabilisation & Chaos, Inc.?

"While the liberals think has led an awful campaign against terrorism, the overall voting population thinks Bush is better suited to lead the war on terrorism by a huge margin. While, [b]in reality that might not be true, the voters think it is."

In other words, the "liberals" are right and the people have been tricked. Thanks. What am I saying different?

"Last time I checked we hadnt been attacked since we took the war to the terrorists."

The fact that the continental USA has not been attacked proves to you that the terrorists are on the run?? Has it occured to you that this might be due more to the fact that some anti-terrorist measures have been taken inside the US rather than the fact that ..the US Marines are attacking Falujah?

"Really? Who hates [the United States]? Do we not have any allies? Do you not think we just gain a new friend in Russia in the war on terrorism?"

Anti-Americanism is rampant pretty much everywhere. Check the polls in the "allies'" countries, too. (Even in loyal Britain, most people think that "Bush is an idiot"!)

All the goodwill and the sympathy that was built right after 9/11, has evaporated, thanks to Dubya's cowboy act. During the Athens Olympics, for instance, American athletes were advised to "tone it down" and "not be too American" (!), etc.

As to the value of Putin's "support", the less said the better.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
You truly think that American military presence is bringing stability

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Absolutely. It brings a tremendous amount of stability. Taiwan, Korea, Israel, etc. etc. etc.

[ QUOTE ]
nd in Korea, the sooner the two countries are united, North and South, the better for all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

North Korea completely agrees with you. The only problem with the Norths plan is that they are still at war with South Korea and they want to "reunite" South Korea by force. I was on a business trip to Korea a few years ago. They are still very fearful of the North and they are well aware of what the North is capable of.

[ QUOTE ]

In other words, the "liberals" are right and the people have been tricked. Thanks. What am I saying different?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know better. I am saying that the question is simply not important. The voters have already decided.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the continental USA has not been attacked proves to you that the terrorists are on the run?? Has it occured to you that this might be due more to the fact that some anti-terrorist measures have been taken inside the US rather than the fact that ..the US Marines are attacking Falujah?

[/ QUOTE ]

um...I am saying that there simply hasnt been any attacks. This could be for many reasons. However, I highly doubt its dumb luck or that the terrorists have simply decided not to attack. I will give Bush some credit for the end result.

[Chris Alger]

No, not rhetoric: contrast everything that Bush said with the record, and put to bed this "party of values" crap.

[Chris Alger]

I'm for wiping out the terrorists too.

I just think we need to start with the Republicans.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think we need to start with the Republicans

[/ QUOTE ]

Your comment is simply vulgar and terrribly offensive, even if you were trying to be funny (which I am not sure you were).

So, are you really advocating killing Republicans?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw Tommy Franks on TV and he asked, "what were you willing to do on Sept 12, 2001 to protect your way of life?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I would have ended all non-military sanctions against Iraq, sent human rights monitors and weapons inspectors to Iraq, ended aid to Israel until it unilaterally withdraws from all occupied territories and recognizes the right of Palestinians to Israeli-style sovereignty, and probably pulled all military forces out of Saudi Arabia and stopped propping up its rotten government. If this had happened, there wouldn't have been a 9/11, there wouldn't have been destabalizing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and instead of the U.S. being the most hated country in the Middle East it would be one of the most popular.

[ QUOTE ]
the overall voting population thinks Bush is better suited to lead the war on terrorism by a huge margin

[/ QUOTE ]
They have little choice because the state-legitimizing media, in concert with the White House PR campaign, constantly portrays Bush as fighting a war against terror and winning it. Nevermind that he dropped the ball before 9/11 and that more Americans have been killed by terrorists on his watch than any other.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any evidence to back this up or is it mere speculation

[/ QUOTE ]
The White House has been claiming that American deaths in Iraq result from terrorism, that the current efforts to crush Iraqi resistors are part of the war against terrorism, and 9/11 hardly needs explaining. So that's about 4,000 Americans killed by terrorists on Bush's watch, the previous record being maybe a few hundred.

[ QUOTE ]
Who hates us?

[/ QUOTE ]
Large segments in every country in the world, virtual majorites in every Islamic country. Look at the international polls. Favorable impressions of the U.S. in Arab countries are approaching the margin of error, whereas before they hovered around 50%. <ul type="square">A recent survey conducted in European and Arab nations by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, has found increasing hostility toward America and its foreign policy. The public opinion poll titled, "A Year After the Iraq War: Mistrust of America in Europe Ever Higher, Muslim Anger Persists," revealed that antagonism for the U.S. has intensified among the people of France, Germany and Britain. This comes as there is growing support in Europe for foreign and military policies more independent of the United States.

In Muslim countries surveyed, resentment against the U.S. is pervasive. Majorities of those polled in four Muslim nations doubt the sincerity of the U.S. war on terrorism and believe instead that Washington's policies are aimed at controlling Middle East Oil and to dominate the world. More alarmingly, Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by large percentages of people in Pakistan, Jordan and Morocco.
[/list] Scoop (New Zealand) (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0403/S00321.htm)

You don't see this sort of news much on American TV because it's hard to sell things to people while you're telling them that they and their national leader are objects of "pervasive resentment."

Bush has created an absolute resolve among people who never would have considered the question of how and when, not whether, to "get even" with the U.S. He's created thousands and maybe millions of potential suicide terrorists whereas before we only had to worry about a few hundred (as if they weren't too many). It is just a matter of time before the inevtiable diffusion of nuclear weapons technology allows them to detonates ships or buildings in several big American cities, spewing God know's what sort of toxins everywhere, killing hundreds of thousands, crippling the economy for a decade or more, and giving France a good reason to sneer as they take the lead in cobbling together a "Marshall Plan" to help the U.S. recover, assuming anyone's interested.

If you think I'm exaggerating ask any terrorism expert what the chances are that the U.S. will slow down the flow of goods enough to prevent it.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we not have any allies?

[/ QUOTE ]
Iraq is a good example of what the term "allies" means in Bush's America. With a handful of exceptions, the only participants were ones we bought and coerced, and they hardly participate at all. And look at what we could buy: Palau, Latvia, Eritria, Honduras, Micronesia, Tonga, Solomon Islands. All the big players.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not think we just gain a new friend in Russia in the war on terrorism?

[/ QUOTE ]
I concede that former KGB man Vladimir Putin is our good friend, welcoming our war against terror so he can continue to torture Chechnya. Congrads.

[elwoodblues]

You now probably understand why I won't vote for Bush. The White House's rhetoric the passage of the patriot act and the war on terror were equally offensive.

Do you think the president was really waging war on people who disagreed with him? Remember, if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists...

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
The White House's rhetoric the passage of the patriot act and the war on terror were equally offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I dont recall the president saying we should kill or exterminate the democrats because they are terrorists.

[elwoodblues]

Not directly. He declared a war on terrorism. He said we would hunt down terrorists wherever they hide. He said if you don't agree with his policies you are aiding and abetting the terrorists.

I find the combination of those statements as offensive as what Alger posted.

[Chris Alger]

Certainly not all Republicans, and certainly not killing them. There should be a law, however, barring any official from office who, in the course of publicly advocating the use of military violence, makes a false or misleading statement of material fact regarding the target or purpose of such force, or omits material facts necessary to render statements not misleading, if such force is actually used and casualties result.

That would pretty much wipe out the Republican leadership.

[Cyrus]

"Absolutely. [The American military presence] brings a tremendous amount of stability. Taiwan, Korea, Israel, etc. etc. etc."

American military presence abroad aims at projecting American military power over the globe. Secondarily, it assists friendly governments in "remaining stable", i.e. not changing their amical ways towards Uncle Sam.

And, by the way, unless you know of something hush hush, there are no American soldiers in Israel. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"[South Koreans] are still very fearful of the North and they are well aware of what the North is capable of."

There is mutual mistrust and hostility, yes. But, there is also a strong nationalistisc sentiment, a pan-Korean all-embracing cause, that is quite strong. Which is why the two countries have participated through a joint team in the recent Olympics, and why they have taken a number of (careful) steps.

The United States, for four years now, has been in precisely the wrong course on the Korean issue! If you want to know more about the proper course, check out the article written by an American (who's no pacifist dove either), here (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n23/cumi01_.html).

"I highly doubt it's dumb luck or that the terrorists have simply decided not to attack. I will give Bush some credit for the end result."

I already explqained to you that the security &amp; anti-terrorist measures adopted (finally!) by the current administration are to be (partly!) credited for the relative peace after 9/11. Beyond that, we are just guessing (terrorists may be planning, they may continue to focus abroad, etc).

One thing is for sure and this is the important point I am making all those months : That the war in Iraq did not advance in any imaginable way the war against terror. (If anything, the terrorists have now more support than before the war. Both inside Iraq, as can be witnessed nightly in your TV screen, and outside Iraq, as the ranks thicken of those who get radicalised and are ready to join up.)

Some victory... As that general said after a victory that cost him a lot of casualties, "Another victory like that, and we will lose the war".

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing is for sure and this is the important point I am making all those months : That the war in Iraq did not advance in any imaginable way the war against terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just don't have a creative enough imagination Cyrus.


Stu

[ericd]

I'm glad to hear that.

I believe Kerry's best chance is to go on the offensive. The one issue that he can pound home in a simple straight forward manner is job loss.

They should run commercial after commercial stressing that the last time there was job loss was when Herbert Hoover was President. Show pictures of the depression in the background with people waiting in bread lines so they don't starve. If successful, the mention of Herbert Hoover will be enough for many people to worry about their job over the next 4 years.

Once that message has been delivered, Kerry will then need to work Hoover's name into every conversation. Whether it is the war, terrorism, gay marriage or judical nominations, he must mention Hoover. Keep changing the subject so that job loss becomes the number one issue for many when making the final choice.

I think this could work. At least it would be better than what he is currently doing.

[Cyrus]

"You just don't have a creative enough imagination."

Well, I like creativity as much as the next guy.

These guys, though, are not even a little creative in their lying. I mean, Saddam gone =equals= terrorism repealed?! C'mon.

[Flashy]

What should Kerry do now?

Keep bring up Bush's National Guard Service, hammer about a 5.4% unemployment rate, say the $200 billion spent in Iraq would be better spent on schools, keep talking about foreign national leaders who despise Bush.

Yep - that's the ticket