Kerry Needs to Hammer * over the War on Terror

[liberalpragmatist]

It's true that Kerry needs to talk about some domestic issues: namely, health care, the economy, job losses, energy independence, and STEM CELLS (Huge - should really hammer * on this one).

But Kerry CANNOT focus solely on domestic issues, as some Democrats have indicated. Now, so far, it doesn't seem like Kerry's doing that - which is good.

What Kerry MUST do is forcefully argue that Bush has not fought an effective war on terror. He needs to point out the multiple ways in which we are not currently safe. He needs to hammer the point about nuclear proliferation. He needs to stress that Bush's botched Iraq diversion has created more terrorists and is making us LESS safe, not more safe.

Kerry has indicated all of this earlier, but he needs to start saying it more forcefully, more loudly, and more often. He MUST do this, in order to appear acceptable to the voters. It's not merely enough the stress he'd be good on terror - he needs to stress that he'd be BETTER than Bush on terror.

[Nightjock]

1. and he has plenty of amunition to do it too.

[Emboldened Chimp]

2. Absolutely--hammer * on his perceived 'strength'

Go after Smirk on the so-called War on Terra and 9-11. Pull a Rove and go after the guy on his supposed strengths. Tear the bastard down!

[Owlet]

3. Kerry and the next attack

Sadly, the most telling argument Kerry will have is if/when there is a terorist attack prior to the election. Kerry ought to be thinking now how he is going to handle the image of a smoking crater in some US city - visible evidence that *'s War on Terrer has failed. He has to be able to resist the rally 'round the White House and stick to the message that * has failed to make us safer. Tough assignment, and I hope in a way that he doesn't have to deal with it. No one wants to see any more people die.

[nagbacalan]

4. At minimum he needs to go after Cheney's continual

contradiction of the unanimous finding by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission finding about Iraq and both 9/11 and a collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda. Someone really seems asleep at the switch on this one.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. I don't agree at all....

that he needs to be "more forceful". He comes across in the media as
strident, even shrill. He is ALWAYS negative.

I'm sorry but this is not a way to win over "undecideds ( who are by definition not very knowledgeable re. politics, and therefore not likely to be moved by argument, no matter how forcefully it is pressed).

Senator Kerry, I regret to say, appears to lack "charm". He appears to either have no sense of humor, or... more likely...his advisors have forbidden him to display any hint of it. He's a heavywight, for sure; and the issues are grave. But does he have to take himself SO seriously?

I say he should ditch the lectern-bound, finger-pointing bit at which, frankly, he's not very effective, and appear in give and take situations...yeah, even the moronic, late nite talk shows.

People watch these things ( I often wonder why) and he might be asked about something besides Iraq, Bush, the economy, etc. His handlers probably fear an inadvertent comment might sink the ship but these are by and large the same group... at least the same mentality... that advised Gore, Mondale, Dukakis so wisely.

No one wants Kerry to win more than I, but unless some change in STYLE takes place I'm afraid he's on a one way trip to Dukakisville.

Then again... who know?

Paul