The Kerry platform appears to be: "George Bush is the worst President ever. Some say he is the worst person ever, more evil than Hitler. I have no evidence for this, but it should be looked into." And anytime he is criticized: "It is simply unconscionable that the Republicans are trying to relive the debate over Vietnam so many years later."

His alternative is to run on his record. It must be good, or why would so many people think he's electable?

Kerry can say he doesn't want to talk about his record, and much of the major media many not want to talk about his record. But for all intents and purposes, the primary campaign was over Tuesday, eight months to the day before the general election.

That means the media is going to have to talk about something, and given Kerry's phelgmatic personality, there's only so much you can to do make him either act exciting or more importantly, appear exciting to the American public (the best image I can come up with mentally is or Ted Caddsity as Lurch, getting all fired up playing the harpsicord on "The Addams Family").

The Democrats might be able to stage some sort of "exciting" event for Kerryn at their convention in Boston, but even that's almost five months away. The ratings- and circulation-concious press is not going to put up with people turning away in boredom from 150 days of "I served in Vietnan," so Kerry's record will be a topic, even if the reporters don't enjoy exposing it nearly as much as they do any slip-ups by Bush.

"N.B. During the NPR coverage ..."

Okay, so I was one of the small bus kids. What does "N.B." stand for?

nb = nota bene = "note well"

Jeff - N.B short for Note Bene (Latin) means Note Well
Saw the post-super Tuesday election coverage and of course the focus was on Kerry vs Bush. On Charlie Rose he raised that question - does Kerry's Vietnam service shield him from criticism on national security issues? Almost all of the pundits (and they were some major ones like Charlie Cook of National Journal, Mort Zuckerman, etc.) said YES. So either these people or the blogosphere is in for a rude awaking.

AWW:

That war hero status didn't insulate McCain from attack.

Oj - true, but that was early during the Republican primary. And McCain, while a media darling, isn't the Dem nominee who the media see as their best hope to defeat the Dark Lord Bush

The press likes a story and Kerry's various problems make good fodder.

Wait a minute. There is no comparison Kerry vs McCain records on National Security. That alone should show that service is no predictor of your record on National Security. In that case, Mc Cain was the real thing -- even if lacking a bit on temperament.

The media is in the worst possition to judge this issue because they are all Kerry clones and live in a Viet-Nam era fishbowl. They will do all the things that AWW says and more, but at the end the basic message the public would get is: Kerry is better (for America) than Howard Dean (which is where the media center of gravity lies on National Security). Any further elaboration of Kerry's voting record, his declarations, and his agnosticism about America will establish that being better than Howard Dean is not enough.

Kerry will have a difficult time because at some point, either Bush or another Republican is going to drop the other shoe and just say: 'I never turned my back on my fellow Americans'.

The lefty hive will shriek, led by Daniel Schorr, but the public at large will nod. And Kerry will have a huge problem, one that even Clinton did not face. Kerry's other big problem will be gun control, which came to the fore just yesterday. What about all those Democratic agonies about losing Tennessee and West Virginia? They just stabbed themselves again. You don't tell the public they need more gun restrictions after the nation has been attacked. Watch for the 2nd amendment to morph into a national security issue.

Limbaugh said a friend of his described Kerry as, "gloomier than a rainy Sunday night in Belfast."

Brit, AWW:

Thanks for relieving a bit of ignorance.