Matt, you've got it exactly right. The Kerry campaign needs to be much more aggressive. Not only was George Bush a draft dodger, so were Cheney, Ashcroft, and a host of others. It should be possible to take this swift boat thing and turn int against the entire administration. So why isn't Kerry doing it?

I haven't a clue.

Of course, one could simply run against Ashcroft...

Why he is not doing it? My analysis of Kerry is weak, scared of lossing, politician who believe he will win by keeping the campaign clean. Kerry is wrong. He must stand up courougeously or else be ready for a defeat.

I don't know why he does not have the courage of speaking the truth like Horward Dean. Kerry just speak in favor of what is popular in opinion polls or speak againt it.

Kerry have not learned anything from Howard Dean. Howard Dean started speaking against the Iraq war when approval rating of Bush was over 80%.

Why not parody the Swift Boat ad - do it much like that, but turn the attack against Bush?

I disagree with Dowd There isn't a dichotomous America, either Red or Blue. The majority of Americans, like Matt said, are quite reasonable. Bush does govern to the right wing base, but they aren't that big in reality. That is why Bush's approval rating is at 42% That is basically the third of the country that is conservative plus some 9% that say I support the president merely because he is president.

But Kerry and his surrogats need to go after Bush with as much zeal as they are with Nader, without seeming jealous and petty. I think a snarky parody ad like Ian suggested would be a good idea. In 2000, folks did radio ads for a phony group called "americans for a drug free white house" in blow, ID and places like that to remind people that Bush took drugs and was a drunk for his first 40 years of his life.

I don't know about Digby's nuclear idea is necessarily a good one, but if a 527 does it, Kerry can't really stop it, and should just mildly complain like Bush has with the swift boat veterans for truth group.

It's not Kerry's job to do it (though I just read on Atrios his latest "bring it on" speech and it seemed pretty frank to me). It's the job of surrogates. And then there are those of us who will have to say "it's still close" even if Kerry is running away with it after the RNC, so no one gets slack and lazy.

Assad, I agree that Kerry should have stolen more than just words from Dean, and he should also heed Gore, whose biggest regret is taking the high and moderate road in 2000. On the other hand, he does finally get harsh in that 'bring it on' speech.

In a proper world, it would be the press that brings this scam down. The Washington Post, at least, is doing something about it.

I think this is exactly right. People are afraid of looking to harsh or condecending, and it's holding us back. The solution then - as hard as it may be for snark loving liberals - is avoid school yard hummor. It will be hard. But I don't exactly think its our fault since Bush makes it so damn easy to verbally rip him up and down. The facts are with us on every issue. We don't need to be giggling. Even though it is lots of fun.

Everyone except Tbogg and John Stewart.

It's really got to make you wonder that the Democrats will show utter and complete contempt for Nader voters (vote for us or die!), but play kissy-face with Bush voters, especially self-identified DEMOCRATS who voted for Bush in 2000.

But the Swifties is just another in a long line of outrageous acts by Republicans that Democrats respond to with timidity. There was the gang-raping of Max Cleland in 2002 that only garnered outrage by Democrats in 2003. Zell Miller's betrayal of the party on which he built his success has just been ignored by Democrats. There's been a little grousing about Alexander's switch in Louisiana, but it's been muted at best. And that's not even getting to the policy issues.

So I don't know why this should surprise anyone, least of all someone following the Democrats closely.

The mainstream of the Democratic Party seems convinced that their candidate cannot be successful unless he demostrates a certain amount of contempt for his base. The Republicans, by contrast, share no such illusion.

At the end of 8 years of a Clinton White House, the signature and major achievements of that time were mostly conservative achievements. There were some liberal ones (minimum wage, family medical leave act, gun control), but they were largely overshadowed by free trade (at all costs), welfare reform, DOMA, shrinking the federal government by shifting public sector work to the private sector, continued deregulation (Telecom Act, Bank Merger Act) and tough on crime act (I would include the deficit-reduction plan as an achievement, but I don't consider balanced budgets to be a liberal or conservative position of achievement; it's a moderate one, and should be the equilibrium point from where we begin all discussion of liberal v. conservative on budget policy; the tragedy of the 80s is that it got identified as the conservative position, thus lurching much of the debate far to the right).

Compare that to Bush in less than four years: two major tax cuts, partial-birth abortion ban, Patriot Act, war, pull out of Kyoto, and at least a congressional debate on amending the Constitution to define marriage. Plus a number of items like like Leave No Child Behind and the prescription drug bill, have the benefit of being conservative in detail, but sound very "compassionate" in a campaign ad or speech.

But as a liberal, I can't help but notice that the common thread over the 12 years is conservative victory after conservative victory on major issue after major issue.

So were the Clinton years better than the Bush years? Of course. But were they really "good" years from a liberal standpoint? Not hardly. Will a Kerry cabinet be better than a Bush cabinet? Undoubtedly. But will it be "good"? I cannot honestly say.

But do conservatives make these dilution arguments to each other (the theory that, sure the president isn't great, but the people who will work for him will be)? Do you ever hear conservatives say, "you need to vote for Bush because then Ashcroft will be Attorney General; or John Snow will be Secretary of Treasury"?

I haven't heard this amongst conservatives the way I have amongst liberals. I think conservatives understand the principle, but they already have faith in their guy to carry out the conservative agenda. Liberals have to remind each other of the residual value of a Democratic president, like chaos theoreticians discussing the butterfly in China and Charley in Florida.

I know Matt thinks that many of us 2000 Naderites want ideological purity. But I think that intentionally misses the point. No single candidate is going to embody everything every single voter wants. Not even FDR did that. I just want a candidate who is willing to stand up on the important issues for what (I believe) is right.

Do you ever hear conservatives say, "you need to vote for Bush because then Ashcroft will be Attorney General; or John Snow will be Secretary of Treasury"?

Yes, they do. All the time. More often, it's the Republicans aren't good, but the Democrats are evil.

And no, I don't think you want ideological purity. This post was targeted at 2004 Nader voters - the 2000 voters I sympathize with. I was equally as ignorant.

Yes Matt, you are right to give American voters credit for being able to analyze this situation. The sinking poll result for Bush is not a good sign for his lame Administration. Most voters understand that the losses of war are permanent. They can see for themselves that the reputation of their country has been seriously damaged by preventative war and the torture scandal of Abu Ghraib. They can see that our nation stands more isolated than ever. Even at the Olympics, the Greeks (who like us so much as people) have advised our athletes at the Olympic Village, not to wave the flag so much this time. And who else but friends would be so frank?

Americans going to the polls in November should think of the losses we have suffered in these last four years. And we who support John Kerry should define his qualities and define him in a positive light. We need to put a face on our candidate and talk about his character and policy in a way that builds him up. I agree that Kerry needs to take off the gloves, and soon.

The gender skew of the parties seems to have distorted the psychology of both, creating the dynamic of an abusive husband and wife. The husband acts from pure rage with seemingly senseless and arbitrary attacks. The response of the wife: "If I love him more, maybe he will stop hitting me". And so the dynamic repeats. Dean improved it somewhat, but it seems to be trying to warp back to form. Unfortunately, running away to the shelter is not an option. The Dems have to fight the way warriors fight, which means being capable of treating the other side as enemies and taking joy in their downfall.

However, the Dems have got to work out their relationship with the Greens better. In all likelihood, Nader doesn't matter after this election. But Clinton and Gore both had to be dragged to San Francisco so a centrist Dem could eke out a victory over a Green. Yes, that's San Francisco, but it means the Greens are starting to attract real talent.

In this election, the Greens refused to nominate Nader and told their supporters in swing states to "vote their conscience". These are unilateral peace gestures. The Dems should respond; any seats lost because of Dem/Green bickering will be lost by Dems. But I don't know if the Dems are doing that. I made a proposal for peace between the two parties a while back. I guess I should update that soon and maybe I can attract some attention for it.

The highlights are this:

1. The Greens should focus on ballot initiatives rather than candidates in major races. This may actually help the Dems by attracting otherwise indifferent voters to the polls.

2. The first ballot initiative should be mandatory labelling of GM food, which polls astronomically, is associated with the Green movement globally, and is something the Dems will not touch.

3. The Dems should should consider supporting instant runoff voting and seek a basis for coalition government with the Greens. This is actually an advantage of the Dems, since the Republicans are too authoritarian to function in coalition. If their centralization breaks down, the party will fly apart. Besides, the libertarians are too indulgent of personal vices and the Reform Party too protectionist to be acceptable to the Repubs.

4. The Dems could also support the (yes) Perot proposal of 1992 - that media outlets simply be required to allocate a certain measure of airtime free to all candidates. This would be a common interest of Dems and Greens, as well as all other third parties. If the Dems supported it, only the Repubs would oppose (maybe the Libertarians for ideological reasons; it would be interesting to see). It would make the Repub game of whining like a media underdog much less sellable.

Obviously, I'm talking long-term here. The peace proposal is a little dated, but I think most of its points stand.