KERRY IS JUST NOT A GOOD AT THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THING
When intelligent and fiercely partisan progressives shortly after Labor Day weekend engage in denunciations of the voting public
for being averse to " facts " and the almighty guardian of elite, insider, Liberalism, the NYT begins having its creatures start clamoring for scapegoats
- it may be time to say that John Kerry isn't exactly a house of fire.
( I was going to link to the Prometheus6
" Amen" post as well but Earl has been playing with the technical aspects of his site so much lately I can't figure out what the hell I need to do to get the correctly archived URL)
Why is this happening ? As I once said over on Kevin Drum's site in the comments - when given a choice between a guy moving incompetently in the right direction and another guy poised to move competently in the wrong direction, the voters are going to choose the former. The voters are well aware that the Bush administration has royally screwed up Iraq but the administration does seem to be well aware that we are at war. The public does not have any confidence that John Kerry- or the Democratic Party - is aware of that fact. If Kerry projected that understanding in a way that connected with the voters, I think he'd be winning handily.
An antiwar protestor, albeit a bemedaled one, with a long anti-military voting record was probably not the best person the Democrats could have nominated to send the message that they can be trusted to manage a war. The reason they did not nominate somebody else - a Joe Lieberman for example - is that as a party they are deeply divided. Not just on Iraq but on the War on Terror itself and John Kerry is the walking, talking, papering over of that critical division.