PPS. Since this is a Kerry thread, I can't resist sharing a comment from the wesleyclarkweblog:


"I'm not interested in having a good nominee, I'm interested in a good President. It might be okay in Massacusetts that Kerry is the most liberal Senator in the country, who threw his country's medals back at the White House. It's even okay with me.

But its not going to be okay with the other three-fourths of the country. The nomination of John Kerry, another Northeastern liberal Democrat, means one thing, and one only: four more years of George W. Bush. I don't know how many times we Democrats are going to try this before we get this through our heads."

Right. I might add that the press has been trying in vain to get some espression of patriotic outrage from Clark on this issue. Because it really is okay with him too. He really does believe in patriotic dissent. (It's the misnamed Patriot Act that outrages the general) .   But my fellow Clark supporter is right, I fear. Kerry won't play well with a lot of decent people who AREN'T all that happy with Bush and who COULD be on our side -- who will be on our side if we have the sense to nominate someone who speaks their language.   Like Clark (who comes from small town America). Or like Edwards, you say?   Yes, Edwards is an eloquent speaker, with a positive message . . . and a gaping hole in his resume; he dismisses that hole with the comment that "national security is a background concern"; I don't think voters will dismiss it all that easily in November.   Not for anyone aspiring to the presidency (vice president, yeah, he could be a real asset!)

Which brings us to Dean . . . or maybe Kucinich?   The delusion that if you just feel passionately enough about your candidate, the rest of the country will fall into line -- that Bush will be a cinch to topple if we just mobilize the people's anger, or alterately that he's so entrenched that you don't have to think about winning the damn election; you can just "feel good about yourself" for your candidate's wonderful positions? (How curious that Kucinich and Clark have so many actual "positions" in common and come across so differently to voters. . .)

Yes, we want to make voters angry; we want them to boot Bush out of office. But we need to make THEM angry ('which isn't the same thing as being angry AT them). And this reporter saw Wesley Clark doing just that.

Okay, I'll step down now....