As an author and former writing professor, I find this kind of writing disgraceful. The problem here is a problem that Kerry and other prominent Democrats share: they don't understand the question of audience. These aren't essays to be read quietly and reflectively on a summer day. These should be calls to action, and never bogged down by glutinous constructions like "such a" repeated over and over. Saying it four times in a row doesn't make it powerful. Kerry still manifests this kind of fuzzy rhetoric, as does Hillary Clinton. Neither of them can actually sound angry because their emotion, such as it is, gets muffled by Senatorial low-level bombast. I doubt their aides know how to write directly and clearly either, and so there's no one to help them. They don't need image consultants, they need writing seminars where someone will ruthlessly cut out all the fat and force them to say what they mean clearly and memorably.

It's not that the DNC has spent the last 10 years stepping on their johnsons. It's Joe Liberman and we need to expend every last cycle of our collective energies to getting him.

...is that they don't know what they want to say.

They ought to say that we were attacked on 9/11 because we were strong, not because we were weak.

They ought to say that 'freedom and democracy' in Iraq can mean nothing if we refuse to establish order in Iraq or to treat Muslims with justice.

They ought to say that our strength in the world lies in our values and our alliances, not in our ability to kill people and break things.

They ought to say that America needs to accept responsibility for what it does and to stop blaming other people for our failures.

But they won't say those things because they're no more willing to embrace responsibility than George Bush and Dick Cheney are.

"I had Jello today. I like Jello."

Seriously, is there a SINGLE Democrat left (apart from Al Sharpton) who understands the basic principles of oratory? Short, "gutty" words and short, declarative sentences work. Polysyllabic agglutinates that run on for paragraphs without reaching a period don't. Senate-speak equals death, as John Kerry so ably proved in 2004.

Like it or not, when the majority of Americans hear a word above the third-grade level, it's instantly translated in their minds into the voice of Charlie Brown's teacher:

"Mwaaa whaaa, whaaa whaa-whaa, mwaaaa."

I have to wonder, have the Republicans been running a long-term stealth campaign to secretly recruit all Democratic speechwriters? Or is it simply blind arrogance? Perhaps it's actually classism, a refusal to speak "beneath" themselves. Or is it a feeling of inadequacy, a fear that if they don't "talk smart", people will think they're stupid?

I don't know. But as long as they keep this crap up, they're never going to be able to connect with the American people.

The nation's tires are going flat; let's not just rotate them, let's change them. Vote Democrat.

The violence gets worse daily in Iraq.

The US Military cannot eradicate the violence motive.

We must plan and execute a phased withdrawal from Iraq.

Bush's appeal is (was) based on the image that he was a simple, plain-talker. And we got a simpleton instead of someone who can communicate directly. Can anyone really argue that his policy isn’t reflected in how he communicates? It’s either an indelible black or indelible white and once you choose you stick with that policy/talking point forever. No gray is ever allowed. Neither black nor white can ever change. No pragmatism allowed.

I can appreciate the need for effective communication but I fear that's confused with dumbing things down. How we determine to be governed involves a lot of complex issues. Instead of advocating that those be put into sound bites maybe we should be advocating for a smarter, more thoughtful attitude on the part of citizens when getting ready to vote. It’s a long, tough haul to make that mindset commonplace but we’d be so much better off for it. To put it black and white terms, we can whine like Bush about all that “hard work” or get busy doing it.

mr. Maracini says it well (and should probably be put on speechwriting staffs). His reference to Sharpton is noteworthy. I usually like little of the content of Sharpton's speeches but I will listen to them because he is a good speaker. I know in my heart that there are many in congress whose views I share but I can't stand to listen to them wander back and forth while I wonder what the point is. America has been raised on sound bites and slogans. "Flip flop" did more to do in Kerry than the Swift boaters ever did.

I've seen a lot of this in government and in academia. Perhaps Democrats are more prone to this because they are more closely intertwined with both of those institutions. Or it could be a sign of to many lawyers in politics.

I'm convinced that when people talk about hating their government (under any administration), what they really hate is the way all levels of government talk down to them. Counties issue "pre-programmed media outreaches" instead of press releases, and discuss the "alignment" of a new road instead of the route. An Amtrak route was rescheduled as part of "rationalizing" the route. And as the late great National Lampoon once observed, the drunk tank is now the "substance abuse detoxification facility." The word "facility," which basically means "thing," is sprinkled throughout government documents, so that a dock at a marina becomes a "docking facility."

I think schools and higher academia are responsible for a lot of this by teaching people at an early age that the more pages you fill, the better your grade. Explaining, for example, why the French failed to build a canal in Panama in a few paragraphs isn't nearly as impresive as turning in a 10-page paper.

Iraq in chaos,

Chances bungled; good will gone,

Get us out of there!