I too am watching this fight with a heavy heart.

This is not a good development.

Steve, every single one of us on the Barricades is standing and waving our collective liberty caps and shouting "Hear! Hear!"

I, too, have written both campaigns and suggested they save their energy for the real enemy. No response, of course.

I'm a little disappointed in the "tut-tut boys, let's knock it off" tone of much of the reaction to this. The Kerry attack was a vicious smear (that even The Note characterized as a "miscontextualizing") that was a personal attack based on a deliberate distortion of an out-of-context quote. This is different in a very real qualitative sense from anything that has come before. It crossed a line, which is why there has been so much press reaction to it. Legitimate policy disagreements seem like fair game to me (how can we decide who to vote for without some kind of debate?), but that's a different issue. This in no way furthered any debate about any real issue; it was simply a smear campaign. And it's shameful.

Up to now, I never have said anything bad about John Kerry, consistently mentioning him as a strong Democratic candidate. This disgraceful, open display of gutter politics and the sophomoric bleatings of Chris Lehane have made me question this idea.

BriVT:

As you know, I am a Kerry supporter, and as you can tell from my original post, I am not pleased with either Kerry or Dean in this most recent mud-slinging.

My point still remains though: neither one of these guys have laid out a world vision or foreign policy for America in a post-9/11, post-Iraqi "liberation" world. Nor have any of the other Democratic candidates. And until they do and get over the hurdle on foreign policy and homeland security, they won't be able to grab folks beyond our base, nor be able to get the media off of these pie fights.

Since nobody but political junkies (and do we make up even 1% of anything?) is even listening to any of this, why don’t we all chill out and watch them spar for a couple of months before commenting?

Since the general election is still 18 months away, it is way too early for a detailed foreign policy position. Dean’s “not the Bush Doctrine” is good enough for me at this time. Kerry’s is somewhat muddier by virtue of the fact that he voted with GWB; he cannot get around this, and he did it because he either believes that is the correct way to deal with the world or he believes that it will be the winning position in the general election. There is still plenty of time for Kerry to refine his position and win the support of those like me who really disagree with him at this time. However, if Kerry and Lahane think that they are going to win over some people by not owning Kerry’s votes in the Senate or personally attacking Dean, he will only end up looking like a yapping Chihuahua and we all know what RoveCo can do with that.

I disagree that Dean has not laid out a vision for an alternative to the Bush Doctrine. I think he went a long way towards that in his recent common dreams column.

True, he may not have a form "position paper" that details his ideas, but I think it's not hard to determine what he stands for on these matters.

Steve,

As you may remember from past posts (or infer from this post), I am a Dean supporter, but I still believe Kerry's attack was crossing a line for primary campaigning.

As for a foreign policy vision, I'm inclined to give them both some time to formulate the complete vision. I know more of Dean's position than I do Kerry's, but they actually seem fairly similar on this. I think the Democrats will actually be pretty close in the end on this (multi-lateralism, respect for alliances, strong support for domestic security, etc.). It is still a long way to go.

BTW, you have a very good, interesting blog.

I'm with you this time, Steve Soto.

It's one thing to fight it out on the issues, as I thought Dean did last week with Gephardt. It's another to just mudsling, as both Dean and Kerry have been doing the last couple of days. And from following Dean's fan blog, I see that folks are taking the fight personally and growing angry with Kerry.

We need to create an environment where, if Dean or Kerry wins in the primaries, the other's supporters will happily jump on board. A strong, passionate, unified base. This is a step away from that.

I think both candidates will be responsive if their supporters ask them to cool it. Stick to the real issues, and show that you have the best alternative to bush.

I agree with Marie. Only pol junkies are paying attention at this point. Most of the country don't even know who these people are. It's not only primary season, it's practice time for taking on Buschco.

Having said that, it's always tough to strike a balance to be tough and criticize the other guy without resorting to an attack or a smear. Then again, whoever gets the nomination will see plenty of both from the GOP. Whoever can effectively fend orr smear attacks now, strongly and artfully without looking like a complete asshole, should get the nomination.

Dr. Dean's Doctrine. Given as a foreign policy address to Drake University on 2/17/03.

Here is an excerpt:

But I would not be doing my job as a citizen if I did not state my own conviction about where I believe we could do better.

The stakes are so high, this is not a time for holding back or sheepishly going along with the herd.

I believe that the President too often employs a reckless, go-it-alone approach that drives us away from some of our longest-standing and most important allies, when what we need is to pull the world community together in common action against the imminent threat of terrorism.

I believe that the President undercuts our long-term national security interests and the established international order when he seeks to replace decades of bipartisan consensus on the use of American force with a new doctrine justifying preemptive attacks against other nation states - not because of their current action or imminent threat, but to preempt a threat that could arise in the future.

I believe that the President must do more on the most important front in the war on terrorism - our home front - through strengthened and well-funded first responders and effective security measures that go beyond calls to purchase plastic sheeting and duct tape.

And I firmly believe that the President is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time, when our energy and our resources should be marshaled for the greatest threats we face. Yes, Saddam Hussein is evil. But Osama bin Laden is also evil, and he has attacked the United States, and he is preparing now to attack us again.

The way politics seems to be working in the U.S. in the past two or three years, I don't agree that those of us who are trying to shape the upcoming campaign for the Presidency in 2004 need to emphasise some imaginary strategic requirement for civility and comprehensive plans exhaustively detailed.

In my whole life it just doesn't seem to have made much difference who the most civil candidate was. Sometimes he was the man who won. But not often. The guy who played by the rules has usually lost. The 2000 election proved to me once and for all that in the U.S. we make up the rules as we go along. Might makes right. It's a cynical point of view, admitted. But where is convincing evidence to the contrary?

In the 2004 presidential race, the candidate who demonstrates that he is best able to land punches, score points, hit the target, blow 'em out of the water--the one who evokes the most testosterone-loaded sports and battle metaphors is going to be the one who takes the prize. If Democrats don't find a genuine contender this time out, they will lose in November, 2004.

So, I'm backing the guy who's got that and I encourage him not to pull punches. It makes sense that Steve (the name, I think, of the author of this blog), a Kerry-supporter wants to see a more civilized contest, because Kerry looks and sounds like such a civilized gentleman and playing the game that way will help his man to win. I genuinely like Kerry as well, and would have supported him as the appropriate opponent to Reagan 20 years ago. It may even work out that his gentility and civility will prove more palatable to the majority in a Democratic party that has gotten used to being whipped.

But in this race the only guy we should want to nominate, to put it the way it should be put, bluntly, is going to be the guy who can beat the crap out of Bush. Maybe Kerry will surprise me and turn out to be that guy. I'll vote for him if he's nominated and I'll join others like me at that point and urge him to destroy Bush.

NB, you raise a good point, and although I don't agree with Marie's comments above, I definitely agree that I want a guy who can get in Bush's face and stay there. Looking at the history of how Rove and Bush got here, they never faced a candidate in Texas or in Gore that hit back and hard, and was unrelenting in their attack.

I think that Kerry or Dean can do that, as well as Graham. We know from watching Lieberman that he cannot. And the jury is out on Gephardt and Edwards.

I just think that the candidate that establishes foreign policy and national security bona fides will be able to break from the pack first.

The Democratic platform remains the perfect "doctrine" for the Democratic candidate for President. It has evolved over the years, but its fundamental tenets of strong national defense and social and economic justice remain the wisest outline for conduct of United States' domestic and foreign policy. It has always been the doctrine of the Democratic Party that domestic strength is the foundation of national security, whether Democratic officials have served it faithfully, or not.

It's contents are well-known but here is an abstract of one variation on that platform as outlined by a current contender* for the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination. The top-ten list format was meant to be more entertaining than enlightening, but works both ways I think:

10. Health Care for All: Make it affordable. Keep it simple.

9. Fiscal Responsibility: A balanced budget is the guiding principal.

8. Equal Rights for All Americans.

7. Healthy Children: Healthy children grow up to become healthy adults.

6. Educational Excellence: Reverse abandonment of public schools.

5. Environmental Protection: Environmental protection is fundamental and requires balance between needs of economy and environment.

4. Reproductive Rights: Women have a right to reproductive choice. "It's none of the government's business."

3. Sensible Gun Laws: Federal laws should not tell states how to deal with guns.

2. Homeland Security. Build effective security of the U.S. homeland from the ground up. Increase intelligence, police, and military special forces. Rely on a long-term vision to deal with societal root causes of terrorism. Reduce over-dependance on Middle East oil.

1. National Security: Oppose and defeat terrorists through a relentless, hard-headed strategy. Restore diplomatic coherency. Extend the definition of national security beyond simplistic military supremacy. Engage with mankind the world over. Sustain the finest military force in the world equipped for 21st Century battles.

(* The above, while drawn from the Dean website, is my precis, so if it misrepresents either the Democratic platform or Dean's positions, the mistakes are mine.)