Am I the only one who finds the short list (Bayh, Kaine, Biden) a bit underwhelming, given all the talent in the Democratic Party?  Why aren't we talking about VP picks who can really change the game?

I'm hoping the leaked list is just a head fake that the media has gleefully followed.  Meanwhile, the best VP choice is hiding in plain sight.  His name:  Al Gore.

I’ve followed the campaign closely in print and on the blogs, but yesterday’s Democratic debate was the first one I’ve watched in its entirety.

I went into the debate a strong Obama supporter and ended it exactly the same way.  I thought my guy turned in a great performance.  He looks more and more like a man of destiny every day.

But that’s not what this diary is about.  I want to write about how good the other candidates are.

We have a terrific field.  Every one of the candidates on that stage had something to say and said it well.  Although there was plenty of campaign boilerplate and obsequious praise of Iowa (naturally), each candidate pulled some thread out of a question that the others didn’t.  

In his NYT  op-ed today, John Kerry proposes getting out of Iraq by the end of the year. In contrast to some of the senator's earlier efforts circa 2004, not to mention the Bush administration's continued vagueness, the plan has the virtues of clarity and simplicity. Kerry offers two simple deadlines: one for the Iraqis to form a government, and another to complete our withdrawal.

Opening soon in Palm Beach County, Florida:

An alternate-realty theme park based on the premise that Al Gore not only won the 2000 election, but was allowed to take office.

 

The 5:30 p.m. numbers from the Secretary of State's office are in

After trailing by roughly 2000 votes for the past several days, Christine Gregoire suddenly closed the gap late this afternoon and now leads Gooper Dino Rossi by 324 votes.

Gregoire (D): 1,358,887 48.88%
Rossi (R): 1,358,563 48.87%
Bennett (Libertarian): 62,284 2.24%

Each of us has our own vision of what it will be like to wake up on November 3 with John Kerry as our President-Elect.  

Mine springs from a sense of how crucial this election will be in determining the global image of the United States for the rest of this century.  So far, most of humanity has shown an admirable ability to separate the nearly universal loathing for George W. Bush from their feelings about Americans generally.  After all, Bush wasn't even the choice of the American people.  His seizure of power was a historical accident, our friends thought, and Americans would surely rectify it at their first opportunity.  But if we fail to do so?  If we endorse this fraudulent, ignorant, manipulative and destructive administration with another term, what will that say about us?   Then I fear that our friends around the world would find it almost impossible to speak in our defense.

So with this background, let me paint a picture of what November 3, 2004 will mean around the world:

Last night I had dinner with a Republican friend.  Let's call him "Larry".  He worked in GOP politics for a dozen years and now earns his living in "governmental relations".  He's well-connected with the current power structure.  But unlike many people of his general political persuasion, Larry is a member of the "reality-based community".  He's clearly torn between his loyalties as a Republican, the professional imperative of being a team player, and his distaste for the mess George W. Bush has made out of everything.  For this reason, as well as his astute observations, I always enjoy talking politics with Larry.

When we sat down last night, before saying a word about the election, I pulled out two blank electoral maps, and two highlighter pens.  We each quietly filled out our maps before exchanging them.  The results surprised me...

     

I wrote the following letter to a "political science professor" at Central Washington University whose pro-Bush commentary on local AM radio has been making the rounds on the Internet.

Dear Professor Manweller:

Your radio commentary on the upcoming election was recently forwarded to me by a friend who asked for my opinion.

Since you teach at a university in my state, I was especially interested in the kind of thinking you are sharing with the young people of Washington.  Your views were sufficiently provocative to cause me to reply at some length.  It is not hard to play on people's patriotism; it's much more difficult to live up to one's own words.

In fairness, I thought I should include you in my response, and thereby enable you to respond.  

The text of your message is set forth below, along with my replies.

What John Kerry accomplished in the debates:

1.  Beat an incumbent president three times.
   
2.  Erased Bush's lead.
   
3.  Appeared more "presidential" in every sense.
   
4.  Passed the commander-in-chief threshold.
   
5.  Dramatically improved his approval ratings overall and specifically on leadership, trust and likeability.
   
6.  Destroyed the "flip-flopper" meme.
   
7.  Reached out to independents and undecideds while Bush played to his base.
   
8.  Re-ignited enthusiasm and optimism among his supporters.
   
9.  Respectfully but relentlessly made the case for change.
   
10.  Stood up and smacked down every attack Bush could throw at him.

What George Bush accomplished in the debates:

1.  Remembered Poland.
   
2.  Offered wood.
   
3.  Invented not one but many Internets.
   
4.  Showed he was a wired president in many other ways.
   
5.  Ruined the reputation of his tailor.
   
6.  Let himself finish.
   
7.  Showed that Charlie Gibson wasn't going to push him around.
   
8.  Boosted wife's approval ratings.
   
9.  Challenged his spinners.
   
10. Got rid of wobbly, unreliable supporters.