Centerfield

Makes sense to me. I have little doubt that Howard Dean would consider doing this AFTER he's secured the nomination. It's obvious that whoever wants to win the democratic nomination must sail left during the primaries. The usual strategy is to immediately tack to the center after the nomination is won.

It's likely that Bush is very concerned that he hold enough of the center to get re-elected, and his push to pass prescription drug coverage is proof.

Another thought to throw into this mix is that terrorists may be biding their time for another domestic attack. I expect that al-quaeda and their ilk fear Bush much moreso than anyone who preaches multilaterism, which I think terrorists will view as an opportunity to stifle any expansion or continuation of the war against terrorists in the middle east. The terrorists know where Bush stands, and don't like it, so they're prone to think anyone else would be better.

What does this mean? Well, to me it means that if al-quaeda still has the means to mount a serious terrorist attack in the U.S., that the most opportune time to do so would be whenever the timing would be absolutely the worst for Bush. A spring or summer attack would lead many to conclude that the appropriate course is to focus on domestic security and scale back overseas efforts. (I don't agree...) it would open the door for Dean and/or Clark to sail to the right of Bush and claim that Bush's focus is off.

Hopefully it doesn't unfold that a serious domestic attack occurs, and perhaps I give al-quaeda too much credit for political savvy. But if they have some limited means of agression available and want to use those means to make the greatest splash, the obvious choice would be to time things to happen when all eyes are on the election.

In terms of al qaeda fearing bush over other possible presidents, I quite disagree.

Frankly, I think he's their best possible hope because he (and his ideological administration) is so easy to manipulate into doing the things that fuel the anger and resentment by which they thrive.

The war in Afghanistan -- which was a multi-national effort -- was not good for them. The abandonment of Afghanistan to pursue the Iraq agenda, pissing off many of our allies and gutting the UN in the process, was great for them.

Simply making assumptions that the ideology that Iraqis would love us for it and form up into a peace-loving democracy was also great for them, since it led to the complete lack of planning for any other possibility. "Staying the course," if the course is the assumption that we can eliminate terrorists throught the world by unilaterally taking out (or threatening to take out) any regime we don't like -- especially if they're a Muslim nation -- is exactly what they need.

The last thing they need is an American leadership that engages the entire world into a cooperative effort to search them and their funding sources out and eliminate them, and to dealing with the core causes.

Terrorists thrive on chaos and it is their goal to create it. Al qaeda wants to make this a religious war of Islam against Christians and Jews (and other infidels like Hindus). The Bush administration has created a chaotic situation in Iraq, and its casting everything in religious terms (and tolerating the General Boykins and Tom Delays in its camp) is helping their "us vs them" religious war.

But the question is, what do they do regarding the election? Do they hold off attacks on the US to make it look like Bush has been successful in fighting them? Or do they make an attack timed for the elections to ratchet up the fear that fuels the hard right?

It's a little creepy to think about all this in political terms. But I suspect an attack on U.S. soil prior to the election would benefit Bush politically. People tend to rally around the president in times of crisis.

It would also be an event the Democrat is unprepared for unless he's spoken out stronly on al Qaida and delevered a tough and consistent message.

"Such a candidate doesn't have to be someone who supported the Iraq war."

This will be a very hard sell. The claim to be tough and anti-terrorist with a record of support for Saddam can only be peddled to cynics who are only pretending for political effect. This isn't the 60s and such deceits are too easily exposed now. Bush would have to screw up badly enough to smell worse than such an obviously deceitful candidate for the public to hold their noses and vote for such duplicity. Honest opposition is a better, more principled platform.

The only problem is that the Dems are really to the left of Bush.

"The claim to be tough and anti-terrorist with a record of support for Saddam can only be peddled to cynics who are only pretending for political effect."

Gee, I think I've seen you post this BS elsewhere, Back40.

Let me make it REALLY clear: being able to distinguish Saddam Hussein from Osama bin Laden does NOT mean support for Saddam.

Recognizing that we did NOT necessarily have to spend our capital - human, financial, and diplomatic - to invade Iraq at this time to have an effect on al Qaeda does NOT mean support for Saddam.

Record of support for Saddam? You mean like giving him arms after he had gassed the Kurds? You mean like selling him services through an off-shore subsidiary when he was under UN sanctions?

There is NO one running in either party with a record of support for Saddam Hussein. Perhaps you should go cheerlead with people who only read from the neocon hymnal.