This does ignore how lots of Democrats have made an end-run around "campaign finance reform" by setting up independent committees designed to channel money to the Democrats. Soros and others still have plenty of money.

To answer David's question, they won't if they know that they're done.

It is true that the GOP has a solid advantage on funding for "above board" political endorsement of the President, but this has to be put in the context of the endorsements Kerry will get (or the slamming Bush will receive) from multi-millionare, soft-money sources (as John points out). To that you can add the effects of deviously biased, but technically "non-partisan" efforts, e.g., like "Rock the Vote". (I saw an ad yesterday where a young man pontificates about the importance of voting since government "can decide whethere his older brother goes to war, his granma gets a social security check, and now wants to tell him who he can marry!" Real subtle.) Oh and don't forget what should continue to be a 65% to 35% edge in positive-negative media coverage, 24/7.

Democrats will not lose because they did not have enough air time.

And of course, Senate and Governor races are all one-offs, and Dems have been able to field self-financed multi-millionares at a rate the party of the rich can only envy.

Insightful, oj. Great point.

The Democrats will have plenty of air-time; but when in the last 20 years have they offered a positive message? They are good at attacks only, and if Kerry loses credibility early, his attacks won't bite. And the spending by 529 groups is likely to lack coordination with the campaign and appeal to swing voters.

This may give Bush the opportunity to run media in states where he is probably safe but there is a senate seat to be retained/picked up (i.e. Alaska, SC, NC, GA, FL, LA, AK, SD) - the longer Bush's coattails the better the GOP chances for these seats.

And don't forget the freebies from the former members of the President's cabinet (well, I guess Dick Clark was "non-seated", wasn't he?). Clark's pretty damn credible, by the way. Saw Dr. Rice on tv this morning. I think they're getting nervous. Just over the past few days, the Bush strategy for dealing with him has progressed as follows: 1) outrage at a disloyal/disgruntled former employee; 2) "of course the President asked about a connection with Saddam"; 3)"the world is better off with Saddam out of power"; 4) on Dick Clark's watch, Al Qaeda built its forces, the embassies were bomed, the USS Cole was hit, and 9/11 was planned and carried out. Unbelievable. W cannot run primarily on his leadership post-9/11 and then place the blame squarely on Clark's shoulders.

Clark is not a nut and he raises important questions. Too bad he's so obviously angry, which undercuts his persuasiveness, and that in an election year no one is interested in actually analyzing those stories.

Clark, as I understand it, makes the following points:

1. From day one, the administration's foreign policy was focussed, almost to the point of obsession, with Iraq and a missile shield.

2. The government had, many times over many years, tried to prove an Iraq/AQ operationanl connection, but couldn't.

3. The admininstration was not willing to spend time on terrorism, both reducing Clark's rank and refusing to meet with him about AQ.

4. After 9/11, the President was convinced (and remains convinced) that Saddam was at least partially responsible and pushed NSC, CIA and other intelligence/national security assets to find the proof.

5. A powerful bloc within the administration wanted to use 9/11 as an excuse to go after Iraq, evidence or no evidence.

Now, I accept that, with hindsight, the president was too focussed on Iraq before and immediately after 9/11. But, in the end, he decided to go after AQ in Afghanistan and not to go into Iraq. That was the right decision. Clark can say that he felt pressured to tie Iraq to 9/11, but he resisted that pressure -- as we would expect him to -- and the president accepted his position. Clark might have had a seat at the table during the Clinton administration, but he didn't get anything done.

Most importantly, I don't see how anything that could likely have been achieved prior to 9/11 would have prevented 9/11. By 2001, the 9/11 hijackers were in place and any offensive against AQ would not have prevented them from acting. If either Clinton or Bush had taken us into Afghanistan and then 9/11 had happened, they would have been blamed for stirring up hatred and making us less safe. That's part of the reason that I am not persuaded by Clark's argument that going into Iraq is stirring up hatred and making us less safe.

Finally, the Dems are arguing that the election is a referendum on Bush. But our choice isn't between Bush and the platonic ideal of a president. Our choice is between Bush and Kerry. I don't see that Clark's book makes Kerry any more attractive and I don't think that making Bush less attractive (if the book gets traction, which would be a first) is enough.

It's obviously impossible to prove that 9/11 never would have happened if Bush listened to Clark. However, Clark points out that Clinton's sense of urgency lead to the capture of the terrorist who was going to bomb LAX. Also, Clark effectively portrays Bush II as being preoccupied with resuscitating the policies of Bush I, while, at the same time, ignoring what had happened in the intervening 8 years. I do agree with you that Bush's best strategy is "he's worse." But you can only do that for so long.

Your brother - I'll take Bush's action's since 9/11 over Clinton's (and Clarke's) 8 year record in a second. Clark does have some valid points but as noted above comes across as a bitter ex-employee. And again, as noted above, if Clarke was so good why couldn't he get anyone (Clinton or Bush) to pay any attention to him?