A midnight speech for a doom-and-gloom attack speech? Who is in charge of backdrops? So much for sunny optimism.

I thought they got RID of Bob Shrum. This is classic Shrumistry.

And why is Shrum held in such high regard by the Democrats? Is there ANY major recent campaign where he was on the winning side?

Here's a bit on Shrum:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/012242.html

There are supposedly new poll numbers that are just brutal for Kerry, showing him down by 6 to 8 even before the President speaks.

Also, there was a rumor on Wall Street that the President will announce August job numbers tonight and the market rallied on the news that they're pretty good.

He won't stand for it? What is that supposed to mean, anyway?

The next 60-ish days are going to be ugly. There is far too much Bush hatred from the left to go down quietly--they make Zell Miller look like Pollyanna. Expect all sorts of bizarre slander to come out from the MoveOn types, and if that doesn't work in the next several weeks, watch the vermin turn on each other.

A few months ago, Lileks commented that the amount of Bush-hatred on the Left is so intense and pathological that it might spill over into domestic terrorism after a Bush win.

i.e. Reaction to a Bush Victory:
1) Go into shock as whatever they were using for reality collapses.
2) Dust off the fantasy ideology and start rebuilding themselves as Luke Skywalker against the Evil Empire. (By now, Bush is worse than Hitler...)
3) Flash back to the Weathermen in '68, and...
4) Start mixing the fertilizer and fuel oil and picking targets within the Fascist Pig Power Structure (TM).

Meltdown. Total meltdown. Almost sad, really.

Am I missing something, or did the The Independent reporter mail in this report a wee bit in advance? I know that England is ahead of California time, but shouldn't I be watching the live "wildly cheering audience" (which hasn't occured yet on my California television set) at the same time as the reporter in England or New York? Or is there a time warp operating of which I am unaware?

Domsetic terrorism during the Vietnam era was, if not supported, at least justified by a lot of people because of what the U.S. was doing in Vietnam. It was a line of reasoning they were able to get away with because Vietnam was 7,000 miles away, and the Viet Cong were not seen as a threat to the United States and never killed any Americans on U.S. soil.

Today, any domestic terrorist attacks similar to the Capitol bombing or the attacks on college campuses and ROTC centers there would immediatel conjure up memories of 9/11 in the vast majority of the American public. Anyone trying to rationalize away those attacks would find themselves rightfully lumped in with al Qaida sympathisers and would kill their chances of having any meanigful participation in the national political debate. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be tried, but those who did and their supporters would find a far harsher climate than 35 years ago.

Well, so much for that not attacking Kerry thing.

Looking ahead, Kerry's final speech of the campaign: "AWOL!AWOL!Halliburton!Bushitler!Oil!Yearrrrrrgh!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Somehow, the image of JFKerry doing the Dean scream is both hilarious and very disturbing.

Now, if Teresa were to get roiled up and start yelling on stage....

My first observation was going to be that at least Al Gore's meltdown occurred after he'd lost. Apparently, not an original thought.

As to who made the call about a midnight pep rally, the content may be Shrum, but the timing feels like 100% Kerry. Sad.

I question the timing of this response.

What is surprising about all of Kerry's moves is that they involve bringing Clintonites like Lockhart and now Begala into the campaign. This is 'Twilight Zone' weird.

First, the primary season was about a civil war in the Democratic party between the Kennedy crowd and the Clintonites. Kerry was supposed to be an explicit rejection of Clintonism, with its seeming centrism. Remember all that blather about 'the Democrat wing of the Democrat party.' The Clintons installed surrogates into the race like Edwards and Clark, for the express purpose of weakening their critics in the party. By running after the Clintonites, Kerry shows his tendency to flip-floppery, merely magnifying his weaknesses.

Second, bringing the Clintonites into the fold is like hiring wolves to guard the chicken coop. They don't want a Democratic President in 2008, because Hilary wants to run then. Hilary also cannot wait until 2012 to run because of what is happening in NY. 2006 is an election year and either Pataki or Giuliani wants the Senate seat. Her battle plan has been essentially to declare for the White House the day after the Bush re-election win and decline to run for re-election for the Senate because 'her campaign will take too much time away from the business of the good people of New York.' Either Pataki or Giuliani would have to be considered the favorite to beat her in 2006, and a Senate loss would end her career. She wants to be able to run for the White House as an undefeated candidate, having bested the formidable (snicker or chortle depending on your mood) Rick Lazio. By not running in 2006 against a formidable Republican, she keeps her perfect record. By bringing Clinton loyalists into his campaign, Kerry has signed his own death warrant. If he somehow starts to make a comeback in the polls, he'd better hire a food taster.

Finally, what do the Clintonites bring to the table? The entire Clinton MO has been negative attack. Carvillism is all about tearing down the other guy. Has there been another President since Lincoln who has been subject to such villification as Bush has suffered already? He's been accused by people who get air time (not just the MoveOn crowd), by people in positions where they are treated with respect and listened to as if they actually might say something of value, of being a drunk, an idiot, an ignoramus, a psychopath, a genocidal maniac, a liar, a coward, a draft dodger, an enabler of securities fraud. He's been accused of everything except adultery, rape, and trading in cattle futures on inside information. What else can they say about him? I'm half-expecting a commercial where they say that his mother wears Army shoes.

It just seems that this is the last desperate Hail Mary pass of the campaign. And guys who call it 'Lambert Field' should not be doing football stuff.

Excellent point about the Clinton and Clinton position of always going on the negative, Bart.

The other thing they had though was a defined position --chosen in advance-- and they would force their Dem allies and Rep adversaries to stake out positions right and left of it ahead of them, leaving them to grab the mushy middle. Kerry has no position, at bottom, so there's no way he can tack toward the mass of voters without having to explain a whole slew of contradictory positions.

Who's driving this clattering train?

I'd say death, but even that wouldn't explain the Kerry's apparent desire for complete annihilation.