Depending on which poll you read, the race is a dead heat or Bush is up by as much as 3%. Bush is, of course, the worst president in American history, presiding over a record deficit, a lousy economy & an unpopular war. Why is Kerry having so much trouble convincing most of the country that he'd be better? A good campaigner like Clinton would salivate at the prospect of going against such a weak incumbent.

However, Kerry is not a good campaigner. Like Gore, he just can't seem to come across as likable & hasn't mastered the 30-second sound bite that's so important in reaching the type of voter who gets all his news from---well, 30-second sound bites. Like Dukakis, he was sooooo slow to respond to attacks or to attack Bush himself, that now when he does either, it comes across as an act of desperation more than an essential truth.

Howard Dean's "let 'er rip" style of campaigning seemed to me best suited to go against Bush. He had the liberal base & the anti-war movement & the college kids fired up about toppling he current administration. During the primaries, I thought it was stupid, selfish, & short-sighted of the other Democratic candidates to tear Dean down & discredit him. (In this regard, at least, Gore was more of a visionary than these candidates were.) What's happening is just what I feared---the momentum that Dean stirred up has fizzled while Kerry has run a campaign designed not to offend people that aren't gonna vote for him anyway.

Kerry had better be good in the debates.

Hey Joe, I agree with you about Dean and was feeling a bit downhearted. But if you go to michaelmoore.com and read his message called "put your hankies away" and also read about his swing state campus crusade it might get you feeling a bit more optamistic!! I know I will be devastated if Kerry loses. He's gotta be better than the alternative! I think this is the most important election in the history of my birthland!!!

Also here is a song to give you all hope!! Spread it around!!

Artist:John Farnham
Album: Whispering Jack (Australia 1986)

Your The Voice

We have the chance, to turn the pages over
We can write what we want to write
We gotta make ends meet, before we get much older
We're all someones daughter
We're all someones son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun

You're the voice try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
Oh, Oh
We're not gonna sit in silence
We're not gonna live in fear
Oh, Oh

This time, we know we all can stand together
With the power to be powerful
Believing, we can make it better
We're all someone's daughter
We're all someone's son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun..

If you haven't heard it try to get a copy. Turn it up real loud it's very stirring!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by louise:
But if you go to michaelmoore.com and read his message called "put your hankies away" ... it might get you feeling a bit more optamistic!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree--this article is a good antidote to the mind-numbing garbage the media spews on us daily. Here's a link to it: Put Your Hankies Away
<FONT size="1">Edited to say this is Shelley on Jay's computer. I forgot that I wasn't me at the moment.</FONT s>

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by cliffite on Sep 25, 2004 ---</FONT></center>

Thanks for the link! Should be required reading for everybody. I agree with everything he sez & certainly am not giving up.

But I still wanna see Kerry campaign better. Perhaps as things stand today, he actually would win coz of all the young folks voting for the first time, but I'm not satisfied with that. As a sports fan, I know that to win the game you gotta keep running up the score. As an Italian street kid from Pittsburgh, I know that to win a fight you gotta be more ruthless than the other guy. I'm not trying to be a wet blanket---I just wanna see him open up a big lead before Election Day even gets here.

Over the years I've seen every Dem but Clinton make the same mistake. The polls show that most Americans prefer campaigns based on the issues rather than one based on attacks, & the Dems campaign based on that sentiment. The problem with this strategy is that even tho' voters may prefer to hear about the issues, it's the attack ads that win elections!!!

Kerry needs some catchy phrases to plant into peoples' minds. We saw this during the O.J. Simpson trial. Almost every juror who was interviewed repeated the Johnnie Cochran line, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Months of testimony & evidence didn't mean a thing; all they remembered was a stupid, rhyming phrase.

Here's how I would run this campaign if I were Kerry:
1. Never refer to the President & VP by their real names. Call 'em "Frat Boy" & "Mr. 5 Deferments."
2. Show a commercial with footage from the Viet Nam War, juxtaposed with an image of a college kid on Princeton's lawn, catching a frisbee between his legs. The kid should be approximately the same size & have the same features of a young Bush. Keep the camera far away so the picture blurs slightly, & the viewer thinks this might be Bush. Then cut to footage from the Iraq War, juxtaposed with still pictures of Bush with that smug look he often gets, the one that says, "I'm a spoiled rich kid who got where I am coz of who I am."
3. thesmokinggun.com has (or used to have) video of a drunken Bush at a friend's wedding, proposing a disgusting toast to the camera. I'd show that all over America.
4. Show a commercial with Jeb's order putting Florida into Martial Law a few days before 9/11. (It can be found right on Jeb's web site.) Say nothing else about it; let the viewer draw his own conclusion.
5. How about another commerical, showing bin Laden running free, then cutting to the attacks on the Russian children?

I won't even charge Kerry for this information.

Kerry needs to win the upcoming debates. If I were him, I'd directley challenge Bush to forget about the stupid agreements they had on the format, where they can't ask questions of each other, and make Bush look like the stupid and bumbling coward that he is when he refuses. His handlers won't let him of course.

Kerry may make more sense, but Bush, unfortunately, is a better speaker... It seems that in a comparison of speeches given by each of them, Bush comes off better... he has "sound bites" down pat... although when speaking "off the cuff" they may be more equal.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The Candidates, Seen From the Classroom
By STANLEY FISH

Published: September 24, 2004
New York Times

In an unofficial but very formal poll taken in my freshman writing class the other day, George Bush beat John Kerry by a vote of 13 to 2 (14 to 2, if you count me). My students were not voting on the candidates' ideas. They were voting on the skill (or lack of skill) displayed in the presentation of those ideas.

The basis for their judgments was a side-by-side display in this newspaper on Sept. 8 of excerpts from speeches each man gave the previous day. Put aside whatever preferences you might have for either candidate's positions, I instructed; just tell me who does a better job of articulating his positions, and why.

The analysis was devastating. President Bush, the students pointed out, begins with a perfect topic sentence - "Our strategy is succeeding"- that nicely sets up a first paragraph describing how conditions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia four years ago aided terrorists. This is followed by a paragraph explaining how the administration's policies have produced a turnaround in each country "because we acted." The paragraph's conclusion is concise, brisk and earned: "We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer."

It doesn't hurt that the names of the countries he lists all have the letter "a," as do the words "America" and "safer." He and his speechwriters deserve credit for using the accident of euphony to give the argument cohesiveness and force. There is of course no logical relationship between the repetition of a sound and the soundness of an argument, but if it is skillfully employed repetition can enhance a logical point or even give the illusion of one when none is present.

The students also found repetition in the Kerry speech, about the outsourcing of jobs, but, as many pointed out, when Mr. Kerry repeats the phrase "your tax dollars" it is because he has become lost in his own sentence and has to begin again.

When he finally extracts himself from that sentence, he makes two big mistakes in the next one: "That's bad enough, but you know there's something worse, don't you?" No, Senator Kerry, we don't know - because you haven't told us. He is asking people to respond to a point he hasn't yet made and, even worse, by saying "don't you?" he is implying they should know what this point is before he makes it. As a result, the audience is made to feel stupid.

And if that wasn't "bad enough,'' consider his next two sentences. Up until now Mr. Kerry's point (insofar as you could discern one) had been that current tax policies reward companies for moving their operations overseas. But he goes on to add, "it gets worse than that in terms of choices." The audience barely has time to wonder what and whose choices he's talking about before it is entirely disoriented by the declaration that "today the tax code actually does something that's right." Excuse us, but how can getting something "right" be "worse"? It turns out that there is an answer to that question later in the speech - Mr. Kerry says that while the tax code now rewards companies that export American products, Mr. Bush wants to eliminate that good incentive - but it comes far too late for an audience discombobulated by the sudden and unannounced change in the argument's direction.

Senator Kerry, my students observed with a mix of solemnity and glee, has violated two cardinal rules of exposition: don't presume your audience has information you haven't provided, and always pay attention to the expectations of your listeners. They also felt that when he concludes by declaring that "when I'm president of the United States, it'll take me about a nanosecond to ask the Congress to close that stupid loophole," he undercuts the dignity both of his message and of the office he aspires to by calling the loophole "stupid" (instead of "unconscionable" or "unprincipled" or even "criminal"). "Stupid," one student said, is not a "presidential kind of word."

So what? What does it matter if Mr. Kerry's words stumble and halt, while Mr. Bush's flow easily from sentence to sentence and paragraph to paragraph? Well, listen to the composite judgments my students made on the Democratic challenger: "confused," "difficult to understand," "can't seem to make his point clearly," "I'm not sure what he's saying," and my favorite, "he's kind of 'skippy,' all over the place."

Now of course it could be the case that every student who voted against Mr. Kerry's speech in my little poll will vote for him in the general election. After all, what we're talking about here is merely a matter of style, not substance, right? And - this is a common refrain among Kerry supporters - doesn't Mr. Bush's directness and simplicity of presentation reflect a simplicity of mind and an incapacity for nuance, while Mr. Kerry's ideas are just too complicated for the rhythms of publicly accessible prose?

Sorry, but that's dead wrong. If you can't explain an idea or a policy plainly in one or two sentences, it's not yours; and if it's not yours, no one you speak to will be persuaded of it, or even know what it is, or (and this is the real point) know what you are. Words are not just the cosmetic clothing of some underlying integrity; they are the operational vehicles of that integrity, the visible manifestation of the character to which others respond. And if the words you use fall apart, ring hollow, trail off and sound as if they came from nowhere or anywhere (these are the same thing), the suspicion will grow that what they lack is what you lack, and no one will follow you.

Nervous Democrats who see their candidate slipping in the polls console themselves by saying, "Just wait, the debates are coming.'' As someone who will vote for John Kerry even though I voted against him in my class, that's just what I'm worried about.

Stanley Fish is dean emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kerry's blowing it? What exactly is he supsposed to be doing that he's not? The media spends weeks with the Swiftboat liars, giving them legitimacy. Bush makes mistakes that only a bona fide idiot could make and do the talking heads sit around and snicker about them? No, but they'll jump all over any statement by Kerry that's less than perfect. They talk about Bush being the one you'd like to have a beer with for chrissakes. Well, I certainly wouldn't. And if Bush has a beer it might cause him to go on a bender and....oh, maybe invade a country on a false premise and without a plan. We're not supposed to count Bush's lost years - into his forties - against him and the media does not.

When the idea was floated that Kerry might not accept the nomination until September so as to equalize the money situation, everyone piled on. Now, he gets criticism for not fighting back quickly or hard enough. Well, if the acceptance had been delayed the money would have been there to get some ads out. And even so he's coming back in the polls.

Basically, a Democrat is supposed to fight with one hand tied behind his back and unarmed against heavily armed, unencumbered opponents with a ref who is bought and paid for by the other side.

Journalism is dead. If it were alive this misbegotten, corrupt, radical administration wouldn't stand a chance.

oh yeah, pat...that's the way i've been seeing it! i watch the news and it doesn't seem to matter which channel i watch, they seem to give bush a pass on every idiotic thing he does. there are so many things they should have been pressing this administration on all along. liberal media? yeah, right...

....if the last election is never to be forgotten...... for me, i'll remember never to underestimate the entanglement and power structure of the rich white men who wish to continue to run this country and profit, live well and prosper off the backs and blood of those least fortunate.....with the world as their playpen now....

.....but there is also the lesson that in spite of the above, there is a spirit in this country that can rise up and prevail......if you ever have doubted what a few people with liberty in mind can do, remember what a few people with liberty in mind have done......

so i'm gonna tap into my spirit, join up with those that are tappin into theirs...and see what can be done.....

...you might check on http://moveon.org
for an event that might interest you, or not...this week....

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pat:

Kerry's blowing it? What exactly is he supsposed to be doing that he's not? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand the point about the conservative media giving Bush a free ride. We knew it would be like that all along. But the conservative media have nothing to do with Kerry's commercials (which don't do enough attacking) or his speeches (that leave people wondering what he said).

If memory serves, Pat, you're a baseball fan like me. When your team jumps out to a 1-0 lead in the 1st inning, you start to get nervous when it's still 1-0 late in the game. Your pitcher's doing well, but your batters have failed to add on runs, twice striking out with bases loaded. What often happens? Your relief pitcher gives up 2 runs to lose it in the 9th, 2-1. Fans are booing the pitcher, but as a more astute fan, you know the game was lost by the failure to add on runs after it was 1-0.

What will Kerry do in the 9th inning when Bush's attack ads get more vicious? Or maybe when the Bush people make some phony announcement about having captured a few hundred terrorists? Will you wonder what might have been, if only Kerry had run a better campaign?

I hear what you're saying Joe, but I've watched this thing closer than I've ever watched a campaign. I'll hear Kerry say something that I think is inspiring and then I'll hear it denigrated on the news. I watched the Swiftboat thing and they got face time on every show..over and over for weeks. They should have been laughed off the air, but the news treated the story as though there was a real question there. The Valerie Plame investigation is still going on...that's serious stuff and no one's really talking about it. A whole pile of Delay associates were just indicted and you don't hear much about that. Kerry and Edwards have been getting huge crowds at all their appearances but that's something you don't see on the news. The Bush/Cheney campaign has people signing a loyalty oath before than can come to their rallies! If that doesn't say it all about this administation, I don't know what does. The press should be hammering them for it. But no...it gets a mention, but no big deal. 60 Minutes had a story scheduled about the rationale for going to war, but it was cancelled because it's "too close to the election". If ever there was a time to inform the people it's right before an election, don't you think? And the Dan Rather thing? Dan Rather is a bit of a nut, but as Aaron McGruder said, it's like O.J. getting off because of Mark McFerman. It's a technicality and the story of who George Bush really is and who he's always been is just as true, but that's not the story that makes the press.

I've heard talking heads saying over and over early on that Kerry didn't have a plan for this or for that when he did. If they'd listen to a whole speech or read what he had to say they'd have known that.

I do wish he'd be clearer on Iraq. He'll be hammered if he tells the obvious truth, but it's probably time to tell it. The truth is not just that we need a new president and a fresh start to get international support. The truth is more like the whole world hates Bush and holds him in low regard and considers him to be a dangerous idiot and that's not a good position for our country to be in. I do wish he'd find a way to make that plainer. Couching it in the more diplomatic language - "the president has alienated our allies" - while true, isn't getting the full import of the message across.

Right on, Pat, I hear you, too. I'm following this election closely, too---I wouldn't say more closely than any others, coz I've followed 'em all closely since Reagan/Mondale---but I think it's the most important election of my lifetime, & for the first time in my life have actually sent money to a presidential candidate.

Funny thing---After I posted last night, I started to watch the Steelers game & they showed a new Kerry ad which is definitely a step in the right direction. He looks into the camera & states with conviction that he would never let terrorists harm us, no matter what we hear to the contrary, & has better plans than Bush for what ails the country.

A big improvement over the dumb ad they've been running in this area, where Kerry encourages seniors to go to his web site & read his health plan! (How many seniors do you know who surf the web???)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by P. Pittsburgh Joe:
(How many seniors do you know who surf the web???)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's more than one <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/axe.gif" width=39 height=20> around here who's pretty close to it.--just kidding.(?)

Thanks, Joe, for telling about the new ad. Nobody's wasting $$ by running ads in Texas, so the only ones we see are those that make the news, and I've been hoping that we are, therefore, only seeing the worst ones.

Surely Kerry is getting a crash course in being concise and to the point in his debate training camp.