September 6, 2004 - It's still too early to call the election but I must say I see the Democrats slipping away and I have a feeling that some are beginning to think they botched this campaign. It also appears to me that Democrats are beginning to kick themselves all over again for losing in 2000. The ire is still there, of course, with claims of "Bush stole the election" and the like; we've been hearing that four almost four years now. They are mad at themselves, too, for thinking that they could run the campaign in 2000 the same way the Republicans ran theirs in 1988 - things are good, why change now? Gore is not Bush 41 and I am not a big fan of Bush 41 either.

Now, let's fast forward to 2004. One problem is that the Democrats seemed to focus on the "anyone but Bush" slogan; this was their Core Plan I - find someone who can beat Bush first, then worry about how they'll run the campaign. For a few weeks in spring, Kerry looked like he could beat Bush so they adopted him. Instead of finding a candidate who truly represents their party, they simply chose one who they thought could beat Bush. This is another mistake. They have failed to promote what they can do if elected this fall. Uncertainty is something that Americans fear. While Bush is not, in my opinion, a great president, he does have clear goals and intentions for the war on terror. Agree with his policies or not, at least he has a policy and is carrying it out.

Now in 2004, the Democrats' Core Plan II - Kerry's combat service - hasn't worked. I think Americans see through this and they certainly remember that eight years ago Democrats told us that military heroics didn't qualify someone to be president, now they say war heroics do and this plan has not worked. I think Americans remember what the Democrats told them in 1996. Plus, if military service is a great qualifier in 2004, why didn't they rally behind Wesley Clark? Clark served in Vietnam and also was awarded a Purple Heart and, of course, was a career officer. I can only assume that the Democrats felt he couldn't beat Bush and that the "combat experience does matter" discourse is just idle chatter.

It's too early to tell if Kerry will join the likes of Carter in 1980, Mondale in 1984, and Dukakis in 1988 on the "got whitewashed in the election" list but it seems like things are heading that way. I think this 2004 election will go to Bush, leaving 2008 with two new faces entering the fold for president. I don't know that the Republicans have a clear-cut person ready to take charge in 2008 but what really concerns me now is who the Democrats will parade out there in 2008. I wonder if the Democrats realize this and are shifting focus on 2008 already. Planning four years in advance is a better strategy than planning four months in advance.