Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, a Democratic presidential candidate, told an audience of 150 at a campaign stop in Guttenberg, Iowa, "Here we are on a weekend before a national holiday when we celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday, and George W. Bush celebrates it by apponting Charles Pickering -- a known forceful advocate for a cross-burner in America -- to the federal court in the United States."
I don't see how Kerry can win after having said that, if Karl Rove has any sense. Replay that video soundbite, follow with a brief recounting of the actual facts of that case and Pickering's work for civil rights, a "read more about this case at (something like) www.bush2004.com", and ask if someone who's willing to slander as a racist a man who risked his life for civil rights is who you want leading our nation? (As a lawyer Pickering defended civil rights activists in Mississippi in the 60's)
Everyone talks about how Dean is changing politics with the internet, but there is a great opportunity to change it far more by a campaign creating a fact-check archive of extensive sourcing, if marketed strongly.
But Kerry is so negative that I think Edwards now has the best chance(especially if he's made a back deal with the Clintons, for when W. Clark falters.)
The press and a lot of folks are unconcerned with race baiting slander by democrats. That's simply a fact we live with.
You might be right about Edwards, I saw him in one debate where he was grabbing the populist star and doing a pretty good job of it. Until then, I had thoguht him an empty suit. But At this point I don't think he can win against Bush in his home state, a la ALGORE. At least the dems know Kerry will carry Wackychusetts.