perfidy

Heard some Clintonian sillyspeak this AM, early.

DNC talking head was poo-pooing the Rather controversy. RNC talking head wasn't giving him an inch. Fox talking head finally asked the DNC guy, "OK, point blank- do you believe the DNC was involved in this or not?"

And he answered, "Well, what does 'involved' mean"?

Do you suppose he knows what the meaning of "is", is?

Mrs. B,
Kerry doesn't have to be an unknown. He and his bloated master Ted Kennedy have ruled MA for decades. And look at all the swell stuff that's happened under their watch. That is, to the rest of the state- the hundred miles that exists between Rt 128 and the NY state line.

Wow, a FOX audience laughing at a Democratic advisor, how weird?

First of all, as I watched, it was clear that the audience didn't laugh at him because he was a democrat, they only laughed when he gave his pathetic answer that had to be pried out of him in the first place. For me what's laughable is the fact that when questioned and encouraged to explain his initial, vague answer, Wolfson either couldn't answer or was unwilling to answer in a convincing manner. When the HELL are we going to get a straight answer on Kerry's positions and plans?

In flipping through the news while JC happily chews on his dad's DVD's, I have seen a number of great questions asked on a number of different networks. Questions that could have really informative answers. Questions that I'd like to hear worked out. Not once (and I mean NOT ONCE) have any of these questions been answered by anything but either more questions or flat-out avoidance (usually through attack of the opponent).

One of the best bosses I ever had espoused a great rule. That rule is that you are not allowed to criticize and tear down other ideas until you bring an alternative to the table - a VIABLE alternative. Right now I am really wishing that modern political advisors understood that rule because, stick a fork in me, I'm done. If Kerry isn't careful, the rest of America is going to "get done" before they ever hear any of his proposed solutions. Bush is a known quantity, but Kerry isn't and as the challenger, he needs to provide more answers. I hope he's not just saving it all for the debate, either.

When people tune into the debate, they should hear what they already know and have heard, and they should hear it explained, expanded, and defended. It's basic educational psychology here folks, you present then you reinforce. (Again and again.) Kerry and his team haven't presented much of anything, and they've got a lot of catching up to do.

That's just my inexpert opinion, but I am more frustrated with this election than ever before. I've seen more blah, blah, blah and less substance than I imagined possible, and I've got a pretty good imagination.

Lockhart said that he talked to Burkett for a few minutes and the subject of Bush's guard service didn't come up. This doesn't pass the laugh test, either. Burkett has been obsessing about this for five fucking years and once he gets a senior Kerry campaign official on the horn, he forgets to bring it up? I'm willing to believe the Kerry campaign didn't do anything about it, barely. But to say that Burkett didn't bring it up is ridiculous. The timing of the Fortunate son campaign with clips from Rather's hit piece suggests otherwise.