I can't speak for this myself, having not done the research, but according to Marc Sandalow of the San Francisco chronicle, Kerry's policy statements, speeches and votes on the invasion of Iraq have been consistent, albeit nuanced and middle-of-the-road. Josh Marshall provides on his website the following passages from the article:

"[A]n examination of Kerry's words in more than 200 speeches and statements, comments during candidate forums and answers to reporters' questions does not support the accusation [of flip-floping]. As foreign policy emerged as a dominant issue in the Democratic primaries and later in the general election, Kerry clung to a nuanced, middle-of-the road -- yet largely consistent -- approach to Iraq ...

"[T]aken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago."

Kos got a lot of great suggestions for questions the debate moderators should ask the president. At www.mediafordemocracy.us/campaign/debates, you can write in your questions and send them to moderators Lehrer, Gibson, and Schieffer. It's worth a shot!

See extended entry for the letter.

A lot of people have been asking for John Edwards to be more nationally visible, and while I appreciate the retail politicking he does, I agree it would help the ticket for him to be getting more national media coverage. So here's an idea:

Have Edwards deliver a major speech focused entirely on the case against Dick Cheney. (If you like this idea, recommend the diary so we can get it out there.)

One of Ryan Lizza's readers made this suggestion, apropos of Kerry's challenge to Bush to have weekly debates:

"What if Kerry proposed that he would support getting rid of all 527 TV ads (not legitimate GOTV, etc.) if Bush agreed to weekly debates? The purpose of debates is to inform people better than ads can, right? It would blunt whatever legitimate point Bush has about liberal 527s."

From (cue sarcasm) every Kossack's favorite magazine, The New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040531&s=scheiber053104

For my (brief) take, see below.

So Kerry supports without the reservation the new policy of the Bush administration regarding Israel. On Meet the Press, Russert gave him a huge opening to distance himself in some way from that policy, by noting that it broke the precedent set by the previous six presidents.

???

I don't know where Kerry has been on the past in this issue. I mean, not many have been where Bush and Sharon are now, have they? Why doesn't he disagree in some way? The current policy seems enormously counterproductive.

What can people tell me about Kerry's past positions and why he might be taking this one now?

There was a breathlessly-worded diary on this last night, but I think a more measured discussion is required on what should be a major issue of the summer campaign.

A political writer for the New York Observer has an article at TNR online about the recent protests in NYC. It's here:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=smith032204

I think that the show of anti-Bush strength in NYC during the Republican convention could be a great thing... if it doesn't come off as the cause of extremists. Certain groups show up for every lefty protest and try to make it their own. Frankly, I find this distasteful. If a protest is about opposition to the Iraq War, then stay on that subject. Have a booth about your own cause, hand out pamphlets, but don't try to turn the event toward your own personal cause.

I wonder what the DNC and other Democrats can do to ensure safe, peaceful, on-message protests in August. Or will that be too difficult?

I was just reading Andrew Sullivan on the results in Spain. While some of his comments are totally off the deep end-- like "It is hard to view the results in Spain as anything but a choice between Bush and al Qaeda"-- he did raise a question that stumped me.

If "the war to depose Saddam is and was utterly unconnected with the war against al Qaeda," he writes, "then why on earth would al Qaeda respond by targeting Spain? If the two issues are completely unrelated, why has al Qaeda made the connection?"

Now, as far as I know, it's not certain yet that Al Qaeda was responsible. But the arrows are pointing in that direction. If, in fact, they are responsible, what are the answers to Sullivan's questions?

Possibly John Kerry's biggest weakness is his personality. He comes off as aloof, he talks in that stentorian manner, etc. No doubt the ever-substantive press is going to ask him often (as they asked Edwards about Kerry in the last debate) "Do you think Americans will like you enough?"

John Kerry should take this off the table by saying, as Edwards did-- and saying it fairly loudly and often-- that this is not a personality contest, that the issues facing the country are too serious to decide the matter on anything but who is best prepared to make the right decisions for the country. Since he's stolen everyone else's lines already, he should steal Clark's line about "a higher standard of leadership." If Kerry can make the press-- and maybe even some voters-- feel ashamed about picking a president simply because they like the guy, maybe he can head off this potential minefield.

I read somewhere recently the comment that Democrats talk as if most Americans are barely getting by, while Republicans talk as if everyone's about to be a millionaire. Consequently, while the Democratic platform is in the self-interest of a greater number of voters, many voters choose the GOP because it sounds like the party of winners, and the Democrats the party of losers.

Any suggestions for countering this? "Two Americas" and "Wealth vs. Work" are certainly a start, but the Dems need to start talking like the party of winners-- maybe start talking about an "Opportunity Society"?

Do people here like Bill Clinton?

I ask because I'm curious: what makes John Kerry worse than Bill Clinton (apart from the obvious discrepancy in political skills)? Posts here accuse Kerry of flip-flopping... check. Of being overly political... check. Of not being liberal enough... check. Of possibly having shady money connections... check. All those charges apply to Clinton as well. So, if you like Clinton and hate Kerry, please explain yourself.

What first made me think of this was a memory of Clark being challenged in a debate to say that Clinton had screwed up on foreign policy, too. I don't remember the exact exchange, but I do remember that Clark wouldn't. Which is too bad. Because he's running as a Democrat, for the Democratic nomination, he can't risk ticking off certain heavy-hitters.

I was reminded of this again by the diary below about Clark's complaints during the Kosovo bombing about Clinton's political interests. If Clark was running as an independent, he could have brought this up early on, to make that point that members of both parties have at times made these decisions with politics in mind and that the international situation right now demands a leader who can rise above politics.

Obviously, running as an independent would have made things more difficult in a lot of ways. 3rd party candidates have a difficult time, because they don't have access to a party apparatus. But perhaps he could have kept the loyalty of some of the Draft Clark movement. He could have positioned himself more as a moderate than as a lefty. And he could be picking up a lot of disgruntled Republican support along with the Democratic support he's getting-- and because, in my opinion, he could have had a stronger rationale for his campaign as an independent, I actually think he'd be getting more support from heavily-Democrat-leaning voters than he is currently.

The GOP convention is in September in NYC, in case you hadn't heard. Is there anything being planned in the way of a demonstration? Numbers will be particularly important, it seems to me, given that the convention will probably be granted an unusually wide "no protest zone" due to security concerns. What about Central Park?

Or, on the other hand, does anyone think such a demonstration would be a bad idea?

More and more it appears that Bush will use the same defense with Intelligence-Gate as he has with the Yellowcake Business: he will blame his subordinates. He will plead credulity, ignorance-- "it wasn't me, it was someone else."

The other Democrats must start saying, again and again, "It my administration, the buck will stop with me: I will take responsibility for the actions of my administration, not leave the tough thinking to others, whom I can blame afterward if a mistake is made."

(Then, of course, he should follow through with this claim. But first things first.)

PS. For the Senators who voted for the war, this would involve some gutsy stumping: they'd need to say "I want to get to the bottom of this, because it was my vote, too, that took us to Iraq, and we must be better prepared to face such challenges in the future."

Howard Dean's famous first line to the DNC in California (IIRC) was (I'm paraphrasing) "I want to know why the Democrats are supporting Bush's war in Iraq." He got traction by hammering the other Democrats for being co-opted by the Republicans.

I love him for it. Whether or not he wins-- and he does still have a chance-- the Democratic candidates (apart from Lieberman) are all better for it.

If he does not win, though, and either Edwards or Kerry does, I think either of those candidates can use the point Dean's been making to their advantage in a wholly different way. "We tried to work with the president," they can say. "We tried to be bi-partisan, and we supported the president in a number of ways. But the president kept going back on his word: to provide adequate funding for No Child Left Behind and the AIDS-related aid package for Africa, to ensure solid post-war planning in Iraq. He has refused to work with us, he has put partisanship above results, and the American people are worse off for it."

Thanks to Dean and Bush, Edwards and Kerry are both in a good position to be seen as moderates. They should use this to their advantage by presenting themselves as men who tried to work with Bush and not simply against him in order to help the American people, but who have been frustrated by his partisan politics.

The candidates have already been doing this in a piece-meal fashion. Kerry, of course, defends his war vote in this fashion. I believe Gephardt (and/or Lieberman) has explained his NCLB vote as "the only way public education was going to get any funding under this president." That's exactly the right idea, politically speaking, in my opinion. But those points would be much stronger if they were put in the context of this over-arching theme. (One that, admittedly, may have to wait until the general election-- I doubt it'd help anyone win the primary.)

Whatever the actual reasons for their votes for NCLB, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and so on, Kerry and Edwards can use those votes to their advantage in the general election: they're bi-partisan moderates (they can say: remember, it's not the truth I'm after here) who want to get something done for the American people, and who will put results above politics.

PS. The dirty tricks described in the Globe today (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive/) are exactly the kind of tactics these candidates could refer to to make their argument about the Republicans under Bush.

Has anyone heard anything about Edwards' schedule this week?

I think that he should spend at least two or three days in NH, along with an ad buy or two... He's already spent a lot of time there, and I think Kerry may not seem as fresh to NH voters as he apparently did to Iowans. Also, Kerry and Clark could split the military-experience vote, leaving room for him. Then again, Dean will almost certainly get more than 18% in NH.

Other than that, of course he has to have a sizable event or two in SC-- hometown boy makes good and all that. And he should stop in Missouri. Other than that I have no idea. Oklahoma, maybe? He can't win 'em all, so he needs to carefully target his efforts.

From the Washington Post:

"A top aide said Dean is considering a tax reform plan for the general election that includes a reduction in payroll taxes. If Dean rolls out such a plan, it could offset what many strategists see as a big liability: his support of what amounts to a nearly $2 trillion tax increase by calling for a repeal of Bush's tax cuts."

I say, thank Heavens. Dean's position on taxes has been the one albatross that really worries me. I wonder how he'll present it?