Centerfield

In general, being an "opportunist" is considered a negative thing. But I think in a President, it's not necessarily a bad thing. There's a certain type of person who goes into politics mostly because they seek to advance themselves, rather than serve a cause. But in order to advance themselves, they have to listen to voters, seize opportunities, and balance competing interests.

Thus, the opportunist may better serve the public than the true "conviction" politician. The latter may be so fixed on his own goals that he ceases to listen to the public.

This is yet another example of where balance is needed, between soulless opportunism and stubborn fixation.

I think a basic decision needs to be made -- and seemingly has been made. Namely, is it possible for us to succeed in Iraq ... and is it worth the cost? Does we go through another round of pacifying the country militarily while working on political initiatives?

Kerry's answer appears to be "yes" -- which is the right answer.

Having decided that, why is it difficult to offer a relatively specific strategy, or to outline the elements of an effective strategy? Why wouldn't Kerry be out hammering the elements of his outline, to counteract the perception out here that he's a waffler?

He plays it a little too close to the vest, that's why. It feels risky to him to take defined positions, and he tends to avoid it.

They previewed Kerry's new round of campaign ads this morning on NPR. He has one dealing with Iraq that says, in really simple terms, that the first thing he would do is go to the world to try to get more help.

That's the only "strategy" he mentions. And that's not good for him. Everybody's heard that point over and over, and it won't strike people as an overall approach to the problem, as opposed to a snippet of politically-charged rhetoric.

He's in "Politics". Agree with several points Rick made regarding, so no need repeating.

Kerry can't interfere. WE ARE AT WAR. HE CAN'T SAY A GREAT DEAL AT THIS POINT.

Tired already of all this nitpicking of the guy.

MORE OF TOO MANY MEDIA AND EVERYWHERE, as far as I am concerned. I resent them more and more. Resent what they cost us extra for price of goods. Yeah, sure, journalism and worse yet, communications majors postgrad and Ph.Ds?
Just more of yuppies and full employment for those univ yuppies to live off other people's moneys & productivity.

Alex

The Update brings some more clarification of his policies.
He cannot say much more since we are at war.

Alex

A few thoughts...

First of all...I think there needs to be a more thoughtful scrutinization of Kerry's votes on the Iraq War. First of all...he voted to give Bush the carte blanche on Iraq...(which is bad, IMO) but it was also hinged on the contingency that Bush conduct a good faith effort to get the UN involved with us. This good faith effort never happened. Congress shirked it's duty here...allowing Bush to go in without yanking back the chain when they clearly gave a half hearted effort at getting UN backing.

Second...the Bush ads that claim that Kerry voted against things for the military is such complete garbage it's galling. Kerry voted against the $87 billion because he wanted the Adminstration to raise taxes to pay for it. The Bush Campaign also claims that Kerry voted against body armor for troops. (In an omnibus spending bill laden with pork..also voted against by McCain). The problem with this "logic" is that the bill passed...and our troops still don't have body armor...nor do they have appropriate armored vehicles.

This is the kind of thing that really drives me nuts.

Good points, Carla.
No one here at this blog seems to come back to discuss and run from.

And, who are Bush & Cheney and Co. kidding?Mega millions to corps to outsource and lay off workers for big profits! Meanwhile, making other families people are cannon fodder! This garbage about and brainwashing for patriotism to lose blood for some other country is craziness...and big time avoidance of dealing with who goes and whose ass is on the line. Yeah, sure, all you Chicken-Hawks running this as long as your ass or your kids' asses are not on the line!

Hey, out there, I''m for them being paid $100k a year while in ay battle and family taken care of the same if lose life or major disbility due to line of fire and in lines support on ground for.

Beginnning to think the system put in place by founders needed some changing. For one thing,
Bush should have to face Congr as Blair does Parliament regularly. ( And, need to modernize and quit archiving every word of those people say.

Alex

Also, think is would help some if comments section
here was located more to center of page for viewing.

I agree with Alex and Carla 100%

While Kerry's voting record leaves a little something to be desired. I think it absolutely has to be viewed in context. A safe protest vote like the one against the $87 billion for Iraq is NOT the same thing as not wanting to ensure that our troops are properly taken care of. By the Bush Inc. Admin's theory, my vote for Nader in 2000 meant that I actually wanted Nader to be President. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nader was a safe protest vote because he had zero chance of winning and yet had just enough of a following to get noticed by the mainstream. And I wanted the mainstream to know that I vigorously disliked the choice between Gore and Bush.

I agree very much with the idea that cherry-picking a series of senatorial votes to "prove" a point about someone's overall record is fundamentally dishonest. And there's no doubt that the Bush campaign is doing this to mischaracterize Kerry's stance when it happens to be convenient.

None of this mitigates the point that Kerry is a world-class straddler, tho. He deserves that rep.

When one considers how susceptible a senator is to this vote cherrypicking tactic, it makes a lot of sense that Governors seem to have a much better track record than senators at getting elected President. Who was the last ex-senator that was ELECTED president, was it Nixon or Kennedy?

Good and valid points, BK. All along I thought Dean was better positioned to take on Bush because he was a Gov with a fiscally conservative to moderate record. Plus he's long been pro-NRA, which would play well with the middle. But, more than anything, Dean had a backbone from day one.

Great blog.