Pieter responds to some feedback on the state of John Kerry's campaign. As I've had a few thoughts stewing about my brain for the past couple of days since I heard the bits of Kerry's speech of the other day billed as "major" and laying out his own Iraq plan, I thought I'd take a moment to get a few of them down on "paper."

Several things struck me as I listened to Kerry lay out the groundwork as build-up for his much-vaunted "plan." So he's going through this laundry-list of horrors - how bad things are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc...he's really making the world sound like a dangerous mess with lots of issues that are going to being flying in our faces the next few years. I know what he's trying to do. He's trying to paint the Bush tenure as a failure, as having made us less safe - but the fact is, I, and I'm sure many others are hearing this and thinking, "Wow...sounds dangerous...better stick with Bush." Very few people are going to vote for the Democrats on national security and for protecting us in a dangerous world. That's a fact that long pre-dates this campaign, and is NOT a creation of Karl Rove. It's something that the Bush campaign shrewdly plays into, but they didn't create it, it's a long-term trend.

Kerry could try to take Bush on, but on this ground he's clearly playing into Bush's strength. I know, I know, some Kerry supporters think that the picture Kerry paints and the way he wants us to understand it is accurate - that's why he keeps going down this road, but that just shows how tone-deaf the Kerry campaign is, because the fact is that MOST people don't feel that way. The more Kerry makes the world sound unsafe, the more they'll run into the arms of the Republicans.

He could possibly neutralize this strength, if he were to actually pose a real plan for success in the war as he was billed to do, but instead one was left with a "Huh? Isn't that pretty much what we're doing?" feeling. John Kerry seems genetically incapable of taking a clear, solid, straightforward position. Unfortunately, after having run a stealth-hawk candidacy, he's run straight back into the arms of the Howard Dean wing of the party. Didn't anyone notice that Howard Dead lost - even amongst Democrats? And you cannot simultaneously appeal to the fruit-loop branch of the party and convincingly sell your plan for victory.

Also, can he not stop talking about Vietnam already? Does he not get that it just isn't working for him? It's just more evidence of the tone-deafness.

Wow. I had almost convinced myself that stuff from 30 years ago didn't matter, but you've just put the image of John "Jenjis Khan" Kerry and his back-stabbing of our troops right back into the front of my head again. Smooth move, ex-lax.

He paints horrible images of things going badly for the Iraqi people, yet the only solution I can read from him is, "Get the hell out as soon as possible - there are too many problems there."

He, and the rest of the Dems, keep harping on the talking-point of the "rush to war," but again, what do they offer in return? What it sounds to me is like John Kerry and the Democrats, rather than "rushing" to war, will wait until Boston is radioactive, or thousands are dropping dead with funny red spots all over them. THEN they'll fight back, and then they'll still go surgically after the perpetrators, rather than pursuing a more long-term, strategic battle against terror - something Kerry's people won't admit that Iraq is a part of.

A negative message requires an immediate answer as to what you'll do about all those problem you've pointed up, and that's John Kerry's problem - he has no plan, and when he offers it, it's clearly a joke. He's simply offering no reason to change leadership, because he offers no leadership alternative.

So Kerry in effect walked out onto perfectly dry sand to give a speech that may as well have amounted to pouring buckets of water at his feet and then his supporters wonder why he's having trouble climbing out. If the best he can do is offer a defeatist message, coupled with scare and horror stories, wouldn't it be better to avoid the issue altogether and stick to your domestic strengths? Of course it's not possible, but it's just as obvious what the source of Kerry's difficulties are - they're the difficulties of a liberal Democrat trying to run in a time when national security is a big issue, and doing it ineptly, as well. His troubles are inherent in the nature of his party and the character of the candidate. Nothing else. The system is working.