The Great Vacillator

[plazul]

The regular Democrat and Republican pundits on the News Hour were in rare agreement on one thing tonight. They both think Kerry would be ten or more points ahead of Bush if he had said that he would have voted *against* the war if he had known what he now knows. Mark Shields, the Democrat, made the point that it would be hard not to vote against the war Knowing that there are no WMDs and that there was no connection between Iraq and al-Queda.

Shields said that Kerry has been a people pleaser his whole political career and that he only said that he would still vote for the war because he was afraid of being accused of flipping. Plus, he thought he could appeal to conservative swing voters by looking as tough as the President.

Kerry is now feverishly trying to say what he would have done *differently* in a war against Iraq (everything) but he hasn't given the base, particularly the Deaniacs, a real clear cut difference between himself and the President on the war. If he were to say, I would have voted against the war and here's why, he'd generate some enthusiasm and maybe appeal to swing voters, but he's stuck with that now famous remark, "Knowing what I now know I would still have voted to support the President on the war." (or words to that effect)

As I see it, Bush owns the war on terrrrorism issue and Kerry better just hammer on the economy and forget about looking like an old experienced soldier. In my gut I feel that the economy outweighs the war as an issue but if the apolitical public perceives Kerry as dishonest and manipulative they wont believe his promises on domestic policy.

Unlike the Republicans, we dems aren't reluctant to criticize one of our own.