I don't want this to sound like sour grapes or anti-war self-righteousness, but it seems to me that John Kerry and John Edwards' war votes make it impossible for them to beat George W. Bush in November.
With the recent findings of the Kay report the Bush administration is now publicly and undeniably vulnerable on the fundamental issue of whether going into Iraq was the right thing to do. By voting for the war resolution, Kerry and Edwards cannot provide a full-throated denunciation of Bush's rush to war. At best they can quibble about UN procedural issues. Only Howard Dean, and to a slightly less extent, Wes Clark can credibly attack the Bush administration for lying to the American people about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
The only hope for Kerry and Edwards is to feign outrage and claim that they too were fooled and lied to by the administration. They have shown no signs of doing so. After Saddam's capture, John Kerry was the first to pop up on every morning news show boasting about his war vote.
The capture of Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Iraq is the biggest and most important accomplishment of this administration. Either it was a great and noble deed carried out by a courageous and decisive leader that has brought democracy and freedom to a grateful people, or it was a political ploy brought about by deciet and incompetence that has destabilized a region and made Americans less safe. By voting with the President, the Johns (and the Joe) cede far too much turf to Bush and Cheney. Each of them claims to be rarin' to debate Bush. I can see it now: John [Blank] launches into a long and detailed harrangue of the failures of Bush's foreign policy and the mistakes made during the war in Iraq. For his 30 sec. rebuttal: "So, why'd you vote for it, John?"-- Boom. Standing ovation from the wingnuts in the audience, front page splash the next day.
Bush has already coopted enough Democratic turf with his drug benefit and his education reform (remember, kids don't vote. Old people do.). He's given his base enough red-meat with defence-of-marriage rhetoric and the partial birth abortion ban (did Kerry vote on that one?). There are enough funny numbers to fool people into thinking the economy is getting better and Bush'll blame the recession on al-Qaida anyway. By nominating a candidate who fundamentally agreed with George W. Bush on the most controversial issue of his presidency, the Democrats are setting themselves up for disaster.
And can somebody explain how going to Vietnam increases your electability? Clinton was a draft dodger with no foreign policy experience and he beat a WWII hero and ex-U.N. ambassador. Al Gore went to 'Nam, GWB didn't.
And finally, war aside, what about that record defecit! None of the Johns has made any noise about balancing the budget. Aside from Iraq, Bush's borrow-and-spend mentality is an issue that almost everyone in the country can agree on. Has Zogby run a poll on "Do you think the federal government should spend more money than it raises?"