Whatever he meant to say, he sure didn't say it very well.

It really sounded like he had a brain fart and said something more relevant to the Vietnam war than this one.

In any case, he lost in 2004 and isn't the president. Whether Kerry respects the troops or not isn't going to make much difference to our lives. The fact that George Bush doesn't have a clue what to do in Iraq DOES make a very major difference in our lives, and particularly in the lives of our troops.

This is just a very small potatoe (Quayle sp)for desperate Republicans to chew on in the last week before the election. The only reason it might make a difference is that the Democrats have run a weak campaign and have failed to blast Bush and the Republicans at every opportunity on their massive failures in Iraq.

Why, last week Bush claimed the Democrats didn't know how to win in Iraq. That should have been the Democrats' line against him. Now he doesn't even have to steal it.

Per the source, Kerry meant to say that he can't "overstress the importance of a great education" and that "if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy... You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq." Kerry mistakenly dropped the "getting us" from his initial remarks.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/31/9546.aspx

OK, that makes sense. Other interpretations don't.

Will the media be able to report those two little words?

Republicans have always tried to run on Some Damned Thing. Like Al Gore and the supposed Love Canal story (and others), Kerry's medals, Clinton's affairs, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo.

This one won't work. Kerry isn't running and Iraq is poison for Republicans. Republicans are losing their own base on Iraq. Nobody likes losing and nobody likes being with the losers, which is what the Republicans are now.

If Republicans want to talk about Iraq, Democrats should be happy to oblige them. Nothing about Iraq adds up for the Republicans. They can't add more troops. They can't get the troops out. They can't do anything in Iraq, they're stuck there. Like Kerry says, they should have paid more attention to getting an education.

...vs a botched war? It's astounding that there's even a contest!

...is that Democrats are now firing back, unlike in the last two presidental election cycles. It's clear from reading the AP wire story today that the Democrats have now learned to get their side of the story out in the media. This is just so important to do.

Even better news would be if the Democrats could now turn this lame story against the president: Kerry may have botched his words, but you botched the war, Mr. President.

>As a result, at a time when Republican incumbents are spending upward of $4 million to defend their seats, Schmidt is trying to make due with a $500,000 campaign.

If you wanted to say, 'make doo,' that would be at least clever.

...because the Democrats finally fired back. Kerry got his side of the story out to the media, as well as some of his own shots at Bush.

Democrats are learning, slowly but surely. Now if they could just learn to think while speaking. Maybe they first need to learn to think.

...and Dan Akroyd did do the same character years ago--but much more sympathetically. Sympathy seems to be an emotion that's utterly gone with the wind now, though. Along with thinking things through and taking responsibility and trying to be smarter and....

Borat, I think, is really today's Jerry Lewis. Just look at the way he went after Conan O'Brien's 'pubis.' Which would seem to make the US and Britan today's France--and not in the good way.

...what would be the most fucked up thing Bush could do in reponse?

He could resign on Wednesday along with Dick Cheney and give the presidency to Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi would then be faced with impossible choices: leave Iraq or increase our presence there? Or just keep punting the ball like Bush is doing now? Whatever she chooses, it will be she and the Democrats who will likely have to pay the consequences for Bush's mistakes, not Bush. And the consequences could be severe.

What if we get hit by a terror attack during the Pelosi administration? The Republicans will spend the next fifty years blaming it on the Democrats--and maybe on the fact that Pelosi is a woman.

How can Pelosi get the economy back on track? She would have to reverse Bush's tax breaks for the rich--that would save the country from the consequences of Bush's economic folly. It would also happen to save Bush and the Republicans from the consequences of their economic folly as well. Once taxes are raised, the Republicans will just go back to playing the same old tax cut game all over again.

Could anything be worse? Yes, the Republicans could win on Tuesday. Then there will be absolutely no restraint on their impulses at all. Then the country will REALLY go to hell.

The country needs the Democrats to win on Tuesday. But winning might kill the Democrats. Losing, however, might kill the country. Some choice, hunh?

The Democrats better plan on being patriots the next few years. The satisfaction of having saved the country might all the reward they're ever going to get.