Kerry Says Bush Needs "Some Space" On Iraq!

Kerry Says Bush Needs 'Some Space' on Iraq
By Patricia Wilson
May 17, 2004

PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters)

Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry, who has barely mentioned Iraq on the campaign trail this week, said on Monday he wanted to give President Bush "some space to get things done. "I'm trying not to talk about it in politics," he told reporters aboard his campaign plane en route from Topeka, Kansas, to Portland for a rally with Howard Dean, a former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. "I want to give the president some space to get things done and see what happens," Kerry said. "I wish the president would lead. He needs to lead, lives are at stake. He needs to be really bold."

Last Friday, after privately viewing photographs of maltreatment at the Abu Ghraib jail, he criticized the Bush administration for "indifference" to the Geneva Conventions and other standards.

But since then, the senator from Massachusetts has turned his attention -- at least publicly -- away from the daily drumbeat of bad news from Iraq, including the assassination on Monday of the head of the Iraqi Governing Council. "I think it's terrible," he said, but declined to speculate on how he thought the assassination might affect the Bush administration's plan to handover sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/05/17/kerry_marks_desegregation_anniversary_with_warning/

You don't get in and help.

With a move like this, he utterly disarms a grunch of repuke attack-dog talking points, and leaves them to twist slowly, ever slowly in the wind.

Bush's incompetence becomes a bigger part of the story. Bush can't perform when he's under pressure and even when he's not under pressure.

Kerry's remarks actually HIGHLIGHT that flaw of Bush's while disarming the R thugs. Brilliant.

But I am very impressed with the way Kerry is handling himself so far. He's being very presidential.

Well of course. Why didn't I think of that? You don't bash Bush and help speed his removal from the political scene .... you just sit by and hope for the best.

After all, if you attack Bush on Iraq the Republicans will claim Kerry is making Iraq a political issue! Everyone knows it isn't. And you sure as hell can't be partisan in going after the Republicans. That would not be statesmenlike!

But he's being bashed as it is -- he doesn't need Kerry to say more than he already did ("I wish he'd lead, I wish he'd be bold" etc.). Who would it hurt more if Kerry threw a fit right now and turned the focus onto himself? Let the focus stay where it is. I think what you're saying would make sense if the catastrophes were being ignored, but they aren't -- they're in the news every day.

He's saying Bush can't act under pressure, a basic requirement of the job as president.

You may prefer a nominee to be an APPARENTLY constant, criticizing force but it has never worked historically and certainly not with a corporate media. Some of us prefer Kerry's method of constant, EFFECTIVE actions that have a cumulative negative effect on the Rethug machine.

mucho smart.

wouldn't that be a refreshing change?

when we know they're going to play dirty.

Isn't there moral justification for bringing up this folly in Iraq?

to throw at us! The folly in Iraq isn't buried -- it's out there every day in the news. Kerry's right to focus on healthcare, education, etc. and make statements like these about it.

He's for giving Bush enough rope to hang himself and all of the other fucking rePuke bastards. I for one will enjoy watching them squirm, at least until the Tanks roll into Detroit to "pertect y'all from those TERRARISTS!"

But we need some operatives out there who will be loud and vocal about everything Bush is doing wrong. Bush should NOT get a free pass!! The rumbles should be anonymous, of course, with no obvious ties to Dems.

including former Democratic candidates.

:shrug: If we play dirty we change the headlines. Why would we want to do that when the headlines are so damaging to smirk?

she said, with a glaring gleam in her eyes.

heheheh.

Added bonus: Kerry saturates the airwaves with positive ads while Bush is floundering.

So far, so good.

-MR

since the mid-ninties. We were extra nice in 2002; what a year for Democrats that was! :eyes:

No one supporting Kerry has suggested that we "play nice". It's only a delusion of those who know only one tactic, screaming.

Thank God we have a candidate who knows how to slip in a shiv without anyone noticing.

The Kerry campaign knows what it's doing. The RNC is dying to turn the topic to how Kerry is "politicizing" the bad news, and Kerry's on the high road noting the seriousness of the situation with "I wish he'd be bold" and "I wish he'd lead." I think it's perfect.

We need a bulldog who will cut Bush NO SLACK AT ALL. You can be sure that Bush will give Kerry no space on any topic whatsoever, and that this apparent statesmanship will be spun by the repugs to be passive and lacking in innovation. We democrats are famous for nothing if not complaining without offering a solution. To say we need to give the president space without offering a solution isn't much different. Besides, the president dragged us kicking and screaming into this. He doesn't deserve space.

Yeah but he's got six more months of it. Let him sweat -- there's nothing for Kerry to gain in shouting, and plenty to gain in doing what he's doing.

As for innovation and solutions, the situation in Iraq will be different in a few months than it is now. If Kerry came up with a detailed plan now, it'll have to change later. Wait until September.

Kerry isn't cutting Bush an inch of slack. What he's done is to extend his tripping-foot while polishing his own halo.

Bush is a purblind idiot on account of his arrogance and religiomania, and Kerry knows it. Let the GOP act as if Kerry and the rest of us are passive and lackadasical. The more incorrect impressions they have, the better. Warriors who can't perceive the truth about their adversaries are often quickly ex-warriors.

What we need is more people who are adept at steering neo-Cons to snag their undies on the barbed wire the way Kerry can.

--bkl

Kerry himself needs to 'be above' the politics and let others not directly tied to his campaign hammer away at Bush.

Kerry can't use surrogates to attack Bush. If they do, then there will be constant cries for Kerry to denounce every attack that is made. All Kerry has done is taken Iraq off the table. He is relying on the news in Iraq to remain bad. But with a complicit media, and a fickle public, when the scandal subsides, Bush may no longer be open for attack.

Your explanation makes no sense. You say Kerry's surrogates can't attack Bush* because of the reaction it would bring, but you also say that Kerry himself CAN attack Bush* as if that won't lead to any reaction.

:crazy:

nt

You can be sure that Bush will give Kerry no space on any topic whatsoever, and that this apparent statesmanship will be spun by the repugs to be passive and lacking in innovation.

I think you have to understand that a certain percentage of Republican voters would follow Bush if he ran off a cliff. Those are not the people that Kerry needs to speak to because their minds are made up and set in stone. He needs to speak to his constituency, of course, but he also needs to speak to those voters whose minds are not made up.

There are more than enough domestic issues on which Kerry can speak with no difficulty because, in large part, Bush is ignoring things like the job situation, rising prices (including health care costs), and the degradation of the environment.

Bush is going to make a mess of the Middle East. He already has, and it's not going to get any better. If Kerry were to go on the attack, those "undecided" voters can be persuaded to think that he "undermined" Bush and sent a "subversive" message to "the enemy." As it is, he's giving Bush a chance to extricate himself from the messes he's already made. He knows as well as you and I know that Bush can't do it and soon enough the "undecideds" will see that as well.

When that happens, the "undecideds" will take notice of Kerry's innovative and hopeful solutions to our domestic concerns and will be interested in his solutions to our overseas problems. Simply put, they will be begging him to lead the country out of the mess we're in!

let him!

Perfect, absolutely perfect.

...but calling this a 'brilliant move' by Kerry boggles the mind. I just don't recognize my Democratic party any more.

- Isn't this what the Dem party has been doing all along...giving Bush* 'space' to run amock? In another world and time this would be called a 'free ride'. If Bush* 'wins' in November this 'strategy' will be considered another 'blank check' and mandate from the Democrats.

- This isn't a great strategy...it's a lack of vision and leadership. Kerry will be known as the 'leader' that could have stopped or slowed down the needless destruction and bloodshed...but chose to play it 'safe' instead.

Nobody's giving the Chimp a "free ride" -- even many conservatives and talking-head hacks are attacking him. The news from Iraq is bringing down his poll numbers. Kerry has nothing to gain in piling on, but a lot to gain in taking the high road now.

Moreover, the strategy outlined by most Democratic candidates in one form or another -- bringing in the UN -- may be what the Chimp finds he needs to do (if he can). No matter what Kerry says now, he can't fix the problem for the Bushies.

The situation will be different in a fews months, and that is when Kerry will need to come up with another, more detailed plan. And judging by the success and smarts of his campaign so far, I'll bet he does.

about Iraq just now, it should be getting obvious that he's doing exactly the right thing by not distracting attention from the Big Show that's unfolding in front of us.

Consider the following quote from a recent Truthout piece:

U.S. military intelligence assessments in Iraq had concluded that al-Sadr was a fading force. The crowds attending his sermons were smaller. The number of armed supporters he could count on to exert his will was decreasing. The tone of his public pronouncements was becoming shriller and more desperate as the June 30 hand-over date to Iraqi leaders approved by the U.S. authorities came closer.

This information was not false or wishful thinking. It appears to have been entirely accurate. The problem was that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, without whose say-so Bremer does not even dare to breathe, misinterpreted it. By moving against al-Sadr when they did not have to, they revived the firebrand's credibility throughout Iraq's 65 percent majority Shiite community. And they also opened the door for something neoconservative pundits had unanimously agreed was impossible: They made common ground between Sadr's Shiite supporters and the Sunni Islamist guerrillas who have been fighting the United States implacably in their own heartland of central Iraq.


Kerry is not repeating against Bush the mistake that the Vulcans made in dealing with al-Sadr, which was to give him a false legitimacy by attacking him from the outside.

And remember that some ex-military & ex-spook biggies are on Kerry's side in all of this.

Q.E.D.

Kerry shifts campaign from Iraq

2004-05-18 / Reuters /

Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry on Sunday offered a populist economic agenda of middle-class growth and opportunity as an alternative to U.S. President George W. Bush's "special favors" for the wealthiest Americans.

Kicking off a three-day swing through Nevada, Kansas and Oregon with a speech to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters annual conference in Las Vegas, Kerry hoped to refocus the campaign on the economy and other domestic issues.

His chosen messages of the past two weeks - education and health care - were often muted by the news from Iraq: an abuse scandal at a U.S.-run prison in Abu Ghraib and the beheading of an American civilian.

In his remarks to the 1.4 million-member Teamsters union, Kerry did not mention Iraq by name, but paid tribute to U.S. troops "over there doing their duty today." His themes were jobs, health care, taxes and trade.

http://www.etaiwannews.com/World/2004/05/18/1084845980.htm

Kerry doesn't need to chime in right now and more than he is. Let the Chimp have his rope -- the headlines and the pundits are damning enough. They're dying to drag Kerry into it and turn it into a political campaign battle instead of a direct failure of the Bush adminstration.

The Kerry camp is handling this right.

I'm SO disappointed in how much "space" our Dems in Congress and the Senate have given Bush and the Repugs! It really does boggle the mind. Some people are so worried about losing their seats etc. I really respected Dean when he had the courage to say that he'd have them scurrying like cockroaches.

Except put forth his own plan, which he's done.

The Chimp is being torn down. Kerry could pile on, but it would be redundant and open him to charges of politicization, which he's being accused of anyway, but by approaching it like this it innocculates him somewhat from those charges to the reasonable voters who will see/hear about this. He doesn't need to take that risk at this point by attacking viciously.

I think this is a smart, thoughtful way to handle the situation. He'll begin fixing Iraq after he's elected when he actually has the power to really do something.

"There's NOTHING Kerry Can Do At This Point"

Really?

He could say that if elected President he will bring our soldiers home from Iraq. Well, maybe he won't.

But, if there is nothing Kerry can do about Iraq than perhaps there is nothing any of us can do to end the occupation. Of course, that's not true. There is a lot we can do and Kerry can do.

At this point, it's pointless. Kerry already has outlined a strategy for stabilizing the country and getting our soldiers home.

The situation will be different in a few months, and that's when a different or more detailed plan could be issued.

There is nothing he can do. He can SAY anything he wants (though saying he'll bring the troops home immediately would be just plain stupid right now), but there is NOTHING he can ACTUALLY DO.

...that he won't be the person to ask the last person to die for a mistake.

stay away from the current bushite scandals, but speak out more (and firm out more) his solution for extricating our country from this deadly debacle - and he can also promise that his TRANSITION TEAM will work on his solution with the OUTGOING ADMINISTRATION even before he is INAUGURATED

Kerry is sticking a quiet stiletto into Bush with this statement and some of you are complaining he didn't use a cannon blast.

on this board who will whine that we were "too controversial" or that we "went negative" too much (that's a stretch!) and that we've "got to move towards the center" that the repukes and rightwing constantly move ever rightward.

Really now. What could any dem candidate say right now that would hasten the end of the neo-con reign.

They are digging holes for themselves so well, I think we should just stand by and admire them. :-)

:party:

There are plenty of surrogates out there for Kerry, telling it like it is. Remember, Lil George still has millions and millions to spend on this campaign, and more than Kerry has to spend. Bad news days for Stupidhead are like banking campaign funds -- nothing needs to be spent, events do the campaigning against Bush on Kerry's behalf.

In the meantime, Kerry gets to spell out his agenda. Put aside your desire to slam Stupidhead for a moment, and bone up on what Kerry's saying about what his administration would do for the country. When Freeps start yammering about how Kerry flip-flops and doesn't have a vision, you can take Kerry's own talking points and stop them cold.

Events surrounding this corrupt administration are making the case against it just fine. Kerry the candidate can spend his time more productively, spelling out his platform.

" Kerry gets to spell out his agenda. Kerry the candidate can spend his time more productively, spelling out his platform."

Except on Iraq, the huge issue on everyones mind?

Well, if Kerry's position continues to be "stay the course" and we "can't cut and run" I suppose he should stay off that issue.

Well, if Kerry's position continues to be "stay the course" and we "can't cut and run" I suppose he should stay off that issue.

But that's not his position. He is interested in bringing the NATO troops and advisers into Iraq and bringing many of the U.S. troops home.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

I don't think the U.S. can "cut and run" either. I think that, having destroyed the country, the U.S. is obligated to assist in a significant way in rebuilding Iraq... but according to the wishes of Iraqis.

That's exactly what I meant by boning up on what Kerry's positions are, rather than taking the media reportage at face value. The media like nothing more than reciting their favorite patented scripts (see The Daily Howler, passim, for details), and caricaturing Kerry's thoughtful, nuanced position on Iraq is one of those scripts.

"He is interested in bringing the NATO troops and advisers into Iraq and bringing many of the U.S. troops home."

Many? How many? I want all of our GI's brought home. And I don't want NATO troops going to Iraq to assist the Bush government or a Kerry administration in the occupation of Iraq.

When Kerry addressed the Teamster gathering he spoke about Iraq but somehow managed to not say a single word critical of the Bush governments policy in Iraq. Nothing. A big fat zero!

Why is that? As a retired Teamster I know the answer to that question but would like to hear why others think Kerry was silent on this issue.

Here's the link to John Kerry's speech:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0516.html

Regarding Kerry's approach (Third Story Down "The One Point.."):

www.talkingpointsmemo.com

Bush is not trusted anymore by the countries we need help from. They won't help because they don't trust Bush to keep his word. They will trust Kerry. Kerry can get NATO and others on board in Iraq and bring many of our troops home. It will take a bit of time, but it can be done, but ONLY if we get rid of the monkey in a suit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1620295

This says it all about why Kerry doesn't have to use the terrible events of recent weeks in a political way. Not only are there plenty of Democrats to speak of it, but the news media is either smelling blood and it's coming from Buscho or they're simply forced to carry the news which speaks for itself. And most importantly, the military and the intelligence community realize, maybe even better than we do, that this administration is incompetent to handle the power it has.

Plus, Kerry actually wants to BE president, not just win an election. He'll have some very difficult waters to navigate in fixing this mess. He'll benefit tremendously from being able to point to statesmanship on his own part when trying to get support from the House and Senate.

Of course the Republicans would never use any issue in a political way against any Democrat. And democrats certainly can't attack Republicans in hardball fashion. Much better to be wishy, washy.

Too much slack and he'll slip away.

In my humble opinion, he is saying to Mr Bush, I am not going to be your "excuse" for not getting the job done in Iraq. It's your baby, just as Colin Powell told you months ago. I know you would like to blame any failure there on your political "opponents" but I refuse to play your game. I know that disappoints you but I'm stepping back. It's your job. Now do it. Otherwise, the people will find someone that will do hte job.

Is anyone else picking up a Parent/Child analogy in Kerry's statement?

It's also putting Kerry in charge. Kerry gives him space or doesn't give him space. It's up to him.

Kucinich Challenges Other Candidates For Going along With Iraq Occupation
Campaign Speech Given in Mt. Vernon, Iowa
12/18/2003

At this moment, most Presidential candidates and people in the Administration, including military officials, have resigned themselves to a course of action that would place the United States in a continued military occupation of Iraq for years. I am here today as a candidate for President of the United States to insist that this is the wrong course of action. The United States should be reaching out to the world community to come up with a whole new plan to get our troops out of Iraq. We need to bring in UN peacekeepers and bring our troops home.

The media promoted this war, and now the media does not want to create a debate in this country about whether we should be in a military occupation of Iraq.

I want the American people to know that there is no legitimate reason in the world for our troops to continue to be involved in a military occupation in Iraq. I intend in this presidential campaign to rally the American people in the cause of ending that occupation and bringing our troops home and sending in UN peacekeepers.

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech19.php

to accomodate the expected knee jerk reaction.

YOU don't see the quiet stiletto his words have formed, but most of us do. Thank undergod.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had an anti-war candidate? All Kerry offers is that he would be a better WarPresident than the two-gun, no brain, Texan in charge.

You really see this as approval? Really?

His vote for the IWR. His pathetic defense of the that vote. His call for more troops in Iraq. His virtual silence on the occupation. And now, his call to give "Bush more space".

Tacit approval? Well, maybe not. More like Open Support.

Here's his recent speech on Iraq:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html

Some "silence."

I trust you've also read his words at the time he voted for the IWR. And his recent "I wish he'd lead" remarks are politically brilliant, imo, as discussed by others in posts above.

I think it's rather simplistic to see this in absolutist terms that almost sound like, "You're either pulling all the troops out immediately, or you're approving of Bush's policy." Do you see no complexities within those two approaches at all?

The one's about holding Bush to account. Which has yet to occur.

Complexities? Such as? Bush and Kerry got us into Iraq and now want to stay there until "we" prevail. 80% of Iraqis want the troops out. Most of the world community wants us out. What possible justification is there for keeping the troops in Iraq except to keep from being seen as losers? How many more people have to die so that Bush and Kerry can display their "patriotism"?

"I wish he'd lead." Politically brilliant? Sort of like, "I wish Hitler hadn't been so naughty." Sounds pretty pantywaist to me.

Kerry is playing it safe as he has all along. Tiptoeing when he should be striding. Whispering, when he should be shouting.

The man is nothing but an ambitious political hack.

Such as leaving behind a failed state ripe for terrorism, for one thing. The fact is, nobody wants to stay there. Nobody. It's not about prevailing -- it's clear we've failed. It's about getting out with the least damage possible. (Did you read Kerry's speech?)

I completely disagree that Kerry's recent remarks are "pantywaist," or that "striding" and "shouting" would be effective toward any goal right now, whether changing the Chimp's policy in Iraq or winning the election in November.

I also disagree that Kerry's an "ambitious political hack," as I think anyone remotely familiar with his career would.

It seems that your making something simple really complex and difficult to understand! Kerry could simply say that if elected President he will end the occupation of Iraq and bring all of our soldiers home. That would be sometime after January 2005. Is that too quick? Not to quick for the soldiers and their loved ones I bet. It certainly isn't immediately, like tomorrow!

The fact is, John Kerry did not utter a single word critical of the Bush governments Iraq policy when he delivered a lengthy address to the Teamsters gathering. He was silent! Except to indicate he was 100% behind the troops. That as "safe" as one can get!

But it seems that Kerry did not want to offend the General President of the Teamsters, James Hoffa. And how would Hoffa be offended?
Well, Hoffa has been a cheerleader for Bush's Iraq policy since before the invasion. He even served as a sponsor for a White House front group that supported the invasion of Iraq and for over two years Hoffa was a strong public supporter of the Bush government.

Hoffa even had George Bush become a member of the Teamsters Union!

But, many Teamster representatives and members opposed Hoffa's collaboration with the Bush government on Iraq and other issues and forced Hoffa to change course.

The second biggest Teamster Local in the nation, Local 705 in Chicago with 21,0000 members, passed a strong resolution demanding the withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq!

Had Kerry spoken against the Bush governments Iraq policy at the Teamster gathering he would have gotten a positive response from many Teamsters .... maybe not Hoffa ....but that's all right.

I did read the speech Kerry gave at the Teamster meeting. You posted a different speech!

Here's what Kerry said about Iraq before over 1,000 Teamsters:

"Many of you have served in the Armed Forces, and many are now in the Guard and reserves doing their duty today. Not a moment or day goes by that we don’t think about our troops. They’re our sons and daughters – our neighbors and they are in harm’s way to serve the nation and principles we love. Today and everyday we say God bless them and we thank them for their courage. We thank them for their service. We support them beyond words."

Well I'll be. Kerry somehow managed to talk about the troops without once even saying the word Iraq! Now that ain't easy.

Here's the link to his speech:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0516.html

but I realize it's not the one you were talking about. I posted the speech in which he discussed Iraq. I realize he didn't discuss it in the Teamster's speech, as you said. But he's hardly been silent on the topic, and he's neither saying "stay in forever" nor is he saying "pull out entirely, immediately."

Lets start a drive to send him there !

There are plenty of people out there attacking Bush on Iraq. Bush is trying to solidify his base after spending a hundred million bucks. With this move, Kerry gets to play to the center, the attacks on Bush's Iraq policies continue daily from other quarters, and Bush looks more and more foolish every day.

Kerry gets to look presidential and statesmanlike.

From a purely political viewpoint, Kerry is working this thing brilliantly.

"Kerry gets to look presidential and statesmanlike."

What is that suppose to mean?

He let's others sling the mud for him. It keeps his hands clean so he appears above the fray to the mushy middle.

People who are paying attention v. Most people.

Most voters at this point are probably only skimming the surface of being interested in this race, and are likely working off visceral impressions and latent (or not so latent) cultural and/or regional and/or economic and/or religious biases.

Bearing that in mind - i.e. channeling the spirit of someome mostly disinterested in politics or someone who things they are informed by CNN - Bush and Kerry are parsecs apart:

Bush is the plain-spoken fella from Texas, Kerry is the hairdo monotone guy from New England.

Bush is the gun-totin' NRA member, Kerry is the Democrat gun-grabber.

Bush loves all life, Kerry supports abortionists.

Bush is for business, Kerry wants to tax you to smithereens.

Bush thinks marriage is between man and woman, Kerry wants known sodomists to date your 14 year old son.

Bush landed on the aircraft carrier, Kerry either threw his medals away and insulted the country or flip-flopped like the Dukakis flip-flopper he is and kept the medals dishonorably.

Believe me, as far as most people know, Bush and Kerry have little in common. And then there is this:

1. Every time Kerry has criticized Bush on the war, Bush's people fan out to every media outlet with "Kerry is politicizing the war and getting soldiers killed because morale is important and Kerry's politicizing kills morale which kills soldiers!!!:" or words to that effect, and *that* becomes the story. Here, he is above the fray. And...

2. He has Howard Dean there to say what needs to be said. This is not Kerry = coward and Dean = The Man...though Dean is certainly The Man on many levels. This is strategy. If it damages you to say something publicly, have a strong proxy to drop the bricks for you. It gets the job done, and at the end of the day, I trust the long-term strategy the Kerry crew has. Strategy tops big-dog contests any day of the week. And then...

3. The other reason Kerry is going above the fray: Never get in the way of a perfectly good train wreck.

A lot of people here seem to want our candidate to go into this election with pinwheeling fists and karate kicks flying high. A lot of people want that NOW. It's an emotional reaction I happen to share, but at the same time I believe that strategy would ultimately fail. Reason #1 why it would fail is that going Defcon 1 in a campaign costs a barnload of money, and if Kerry went Defcon 1 on Bush in the middle pf May, he'd be flat broke by the conventon and dead in the water to boot.

There really is an epic amount of pent-up anger out here in the ranks of the attention-payers. The folks are pissed and want a street fight. Like I said, I feel that as well, but I am also glad that someone not in berzerker mode is calling the shots at Kerry headquarters.

You saw what the media did to Dean with 'The Scream.' I think Kerry saw him get chopped down and took a very serious lession very deeply to heart. The lesson? They can end you in a day, and are watching for the chance, so don't fuck up and give it to them.

See #3 again. Najaf. Fallujah. Nearly 800 dead troops. Abu Ghraib. No WMDs (sorry, Wolf).

"I want to give the president some space to get things done and see what happens," Kerry said. "I wish the president would lead. He needs to lead, lives are at stake. He needs to be really bold."

There's an implied swipe in this statement. George W. Bush has staked his entire election bid on his status as a "War President". Here, Kerry is implying that Bush has basically been asleep on the job, derelict in his duties. The average person who doesn't pay much attention to politics will see this, and not take note of it -- but subconsciously, it will help raise doubts about Bush's "leadership".

Furthermore, by challenging Bush to "lead", Bush will predictably follow a dead-end course on this issue, further highlighting his incompetence. Bush is the only one who's in a position to do anything on this right now. All Kerry can do is make speeches. Bush can't lead his way out of a paper bag, which will become painfully apparent as more time goes on and the situation deteriorates.

I'm not happy with every stance Kerry has taken on his campaign, but I fully endorse this strategy he's taking on this issue (like my endorsement counts for anything, anyway).

My daughter is different from Most People only in that she can be depended on to vote Democratic due to early indoctrination. She's not interested in the process, though. She probably never saw Kerry speak before the primary campaign in Iowa. That's when he turned up on the early morning news shows. If she had been an Iowa voter, she would have voted for Kerry based what she saw of him and others in that part of the camapaign. She said that the country is in a mess and he was the one she'd trust to lead. She thought Dean was obnoxious - this was before the scream, mind you. Edwards was too cute and didn't inspire confidence. The others just didn't make much of an impression and of course, my favorite, Clark, wasn't even there. It was all about and confidence for her. This tactic is going to reinforce that feeling in Most People. He is putting the good of the country above his desire to win the election and refusing to get down in the gutter on this very sensitive issue. Plenty of time to wipe the floor with Bush on it later, when the election is closer to hand.

I'm hoping that this is just a strategy of Kerry's to let Bush completely self-destruct.

But his stance on Iraq worries more than anything else about his candidacy.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

He's being way too coy and Political for me.

Take a stand, dammit!

Kerry is subtly pointing out that Bush doesn't act well while under pressure, a character trait that EVERY president needs.

Geez.....This is the cumulative stuff that will kill Bush sooner rather than later.

at the end of the primaries (even though he was beating
my beloved Wes). I mean, he showed so much fire and inspiration,
he really started to catch on. I miss it.

Anyway, like I said, maybe I am wrong on this. He has proven
to be a good campaigner. It's just that "the media" is putting
him in a box (like they did with Gore) and I am so afraid it
might work (again).

This is the time to BE BOLD!

Did Kerry learn ANYTHING from his brush with Dean?

that Dean lost.

More leaders assassinated? More oil pipelines blown up?

What more could Bush* possibly "accomplish" in Iraq.

What does he stand for and believe in?

What is he passionate about that Americans can relate to?

What drives him other than simply the title of president? I want to see more of what really drives him. I would like to see him connecting more with grass roots and less with high donors.

I like John Kerry, but I dont get the passion and the dedication that I would most like to see from a president.

I think passion and dedication are important because they reveal a desire to do what is right, and not necessarily what is convenient and comfortable, or what will create the best image for a leader.

In my first 100 days as President, I will revoke every Bush executive order that favors polluters and the special interests. My first major bill to Congress will be national health care reform, taking on the insurance industry to hold down costs and cover all Americans. I will repeal Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy so we can invest in education and health care. I will take on the oil industry and make energy independence a national priority while creating 500,000 new jobs. I will attack corporate corruption and end the special interest feeding frenzy in Washington. And in my first 100 days, I will declare an end to the Bush policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive war.

More at http://www.johnkerry.com .

I don't know why Kerry is holding back. Playing nice won't gain any ground in this mess.

simple.

I think Kerry is doing exactly what he ought to be doing. His advisors aren't idiots. This strategy is intentional and has been thought out already.

I'm guessing that the risks vs benefits have already been sorted out within the Kerry campaign.

--Allen

When Kerry refrains from entering the "debate" he marginalizes himself and the pundits point to the fact that "he doesn't have a damn idea in his head of how to solve this problem so why should people vote for him". If he does enter the debate, they will tear his gizzard out and feed it to him for breakfast and destroy him. Basically, this is the year of "no opposition candidate"---Bush either has to destroy himself or we lose.

Kerry is being positive in May (coordinated with his ad campaign). Other Dems have been on the attack. Good plan. The words "give <*> some space to get things done" are disconcerting to hear. Everything he has "gotten done" has been a disaster. I like the "he needs to lead part" but I don't really get what he defines as "bold". It sounds too much like avoidance and doublespeak.

Is that Kerry's plan or is that just what is happening?

It looks to me like Kerry is marginalizing liberals and progressives and taking them for granted while he moves to what some call the "center".

He and his political consultants probably think the liberal vote is "in the bag" around the slogan "Anybody But Bush". And if a few million angry progressives vote for Nader he really doesn't care that much, believing that the "center" will more than make up for that potential loss. Kucinich and Nader believed that their campaigns would push Kerry into campaigning against the war, Patriot Act and other issues. So far it seems they have had little or no impact on his campaign.

Why should Kerry as a mere campaign "tactic" oppose the occupation of Iraq and become the "anti-war candidate" pledging to bring our troops home if elected President? He honestly does not favor doing that .... he's being honest .... and two he thinks that's not necessary to get anti-war political activists on board.

As we can see by posts here, many liberals and progressives don't expect nor demand much from Kerry in return for their active support.

That's my take on it. Am I wrong?

"As we can see by posts here, many liberals and progressives don't expect nor demand much from Kerry in return for their active support."
No, you are most certainly NOT wrong.

(and I could work with the Spanish too) Hello, isn't it May or did I miss something? Carp carp carp

My FOX affiliate broke through with him live this morning for about ten minutes. He was talking about jobs. Dean was there, and he thanked Dean for his politics of truth and passion.

Kerry is a class act.

Which class?