CALDONIA

To beat the Shrub in 2004 means that the Democrats must look ahead much further, to 2006 and 2008.

A fatal error will be for them to pander to the centrist middle-of-the-road lackadaisical voter. They must make the case that Bush is a liar, is corrupt, and has no regard for cooperation or diplomacy either in foreign relations or domestic politics. Their campaign against him must be personal and relentless. It will not do for the party to try to win votes by camaigning as "Republican Lite."

Bush has created a War (without end) on Terrorism knowing that in doing so any opponent to his policies would be cowed by not wanting to criticize a "wartime President." Events have proven him to be right, for the most part. Public opinion favors him because President Bring-em-On frames arguments as 'you're with us (the Administration) or against us.'

If the Democrats "play nice" in 2004 they may lose a close race and Bush and the public will decide that the best man won. But if they diminish his credibility, confront him with his weasely lying, his distortions and phony postures, then at least in his second term, when the shit really hits the fan, a no-longer snoozing electorate may toss his Congressional pupputs out of office in '06 and maybe the slate will be clean in 2008.

Already the liars are pointing fingers about the Niger uranium fiasco. The Loyal Opposition needs to rally opposition and stop being so damn "loyal."

Another thing: Couldn't Nader have been made an asset by the Dems in 2000? Had he been allowed in the debates, he surely would have delivered some sharp barbs at Al Gore and gotten enough publicity to gain more votes. But consider how he would have savaged Bush in the debates. Nader would have surely exposed him to be the fool and imposter he is, something Gore was unwilling or unable to do ("I agree with the Governor..."). I have a hunch that more than a few Democrats voted for Bush since he was allowed to market himself as the moderate compassionate conservative.