Why do you think this is?

[Julien Sorel]

John King on CNN: "...this president somehow manages to keep the upper hand in a political debate over Iraq that even many Republicans now concede this incumbent president should not be winning."

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/16/asb.00.html

Now, Kerry has been attacking on the subject of Iraq for some time now, going back to the primaries. So have a variety of Democrats, some of them with impressive credentials. Retired military people, too. The media are reporting that the Pentagon is increasingly pessimistic about Iraq. The casualty rate is rising. Yet, the American public still thinks Bush is a better choice than Kerry to handle Iraq. Why is that?

[yardwork]

1. Because CNN and the other news sites keep saying so!

[Julien Sorel]

2. Yet CNN is reporting the Pentagon assessment.

So are other networks and media outlets. If you read the link I attached, it's highly critical of Bush when it comes to Iraq, portraying him as either out of touch, a foolish optimist, or a simple opportunist.

[Qutzupalotl]

13. Give it time to show up in the polls.

Bush momentum is downward. Gallup is in la-la land.

[unfrigginreal]

3. You know damn well why it is

if not than I've given you far to much credit for your ability to analyze this race.

The only opinions that will drive a decision by the public on who to vote for will come from the 2 candidates. Kerry has been all over the map over the Iraq War. Bush has been consistent. Clinton would call it wrong and strong.

[Julien Sorel]

4. I don't think Kerry has been all over the map on the Iraq war.

I think Kerry has been consistent on it from the start. I do think the "strong and wrong" thing plays some part, but it should be obvious to everyone that Bush has fouled it up, and that Bush is now being dishonest or foolishly optimistic about the war there. What exactly has Bush done that would make people think he would be better at fixing a mess he himself got us in to? Because at this point, people should be adopting an "Anybody But Bush" outlook on Iraq -- but they aren't. And that's something that every Democrat who gives a crap about the future of this party and country should be thinking about.

[unfrigginreal]

5. Well, I still happen to think that the War in Iraq will be Bush's undoing

but it will be despite the way Kerry has handled himself over the issue. The vote will be for change and Kerry will get that vote. One reason that he's not already leading this thing, other than his own faux pas, is that the War was out of the news during the summer. It's back as a major story now and all the reports are over how screwed up the situation is over there.

I believe the "Anybody But Bush" sentiment will take a strong hold by November.

[Julien Sorel]

6. I agree with much of what you say.

I disagree with the timetable, which I think is too optimistic.

If my own suspicions for the reasons Bush is still being favored on the Iraq issue are correct, there is nothing Kerry, or any other Democrat with the possible exception of Clark, could have done to sway the public on Iraq. But we will see.

[Claire Beth]

9. I do not believe Kerry has been all over....

the map over the Iraq war. He has been consistent. The problem is people do not LISTEN closely enough. Kerry talks in complete sentences and thinks in paragraphs, UNLIKE the current idiot in office. Unfortunate for us, most of the american public relate more to dipwad and his bushisms and logic than to someone like Kerry who is wiser and smarter than Chimpy.

I have always understood Kerry's stance on the Iraq war.

[Claire Beth]

7. Could it be that the press has anything to do with it??

:eyes:

[Julien Sorel]

8. I don't know.

Could it?

[Claire Beth]

10. I do believe that is a big contributing factor....

the press has always sucked up to Chimpy. :puke:

[ibegurpard]

11. Because people don't want to believe that their leaders

could be either
1) This inept
2) This corrupt

The Republicans use the media to take advantage of this.

[Julien Sorel]

12. Again, I agree with this.

For example, Nixon ran in 1968 with a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. In 1972 the war was still going on, it was obvious Nixon had never had any plan, secret or otherwise, to end it, but no one seemed to care much. It's for this reason that I think people are being unrealistic when they think Iraq alone will scuttle Bush.

Still, Nixon inherited Vietnam from Democrats; Iraq is Bush's doing. Nixon actually did do a good job of prosecuting the Vietnam War; we are hearing daily now that Iraq is one big screwup. The public was growing restive with Johnson's war leadership in 1968, as it became more and more obvious the optimistic pronouncements were nonsense, similar to what's happening now. It seems to me that if the playing field were even close to level, Bush would be getting hurt on Iraq -- but he isn't.