The hot political topic is obviously the GOP's plan to kill Social Security as we know it.   I have been excited to see opposition to the "crisis"  spin coming from Democratic leaders and not just bloggers.  And make no mistake, Democrats are completely correct that there is no crisis.

And yet, I think that Democrats may be missing a golden opportunity to improve Social Security.  That's right, "improve" not "fix".  We may not be facing a "crisis" but that doesn't mean that the program works as well as it should.

Democrats, if they act smartly, can sell the next generation of Americans on Social Security and make the program fairer to most American workers.

Hackers have hijacked the DNC mail server!  Please disregard any erroneous emails you may have received.

One such example, regarding the close governor's race in Washington, read in part:

This is a fake email from candidate Chris Gregoire, designed to demoralize the party.  The correct version -- which was ruthlessly hacked! -- is below the break.

I'm not trying to start a flame war.  Nor am I trying to second-guess the selection of Kerry.  But I want to share a personal recollection of Howard Dean that I believe illustrates how the Democrats can effectively talk about gays, "values", and "morals"  without sacrificing our integrity and beliefs.

This is a moment of truth for the Democrats.  As other diaries have pointed out, the media is already allowing the WH to spin this story away.  While this story is devastating any way you look at it, the BEST CASE SCENARIO for Bush is for this to degenerate into a he said/she said campaign story.  What this means is the following:

There were many good things about the debate.  Kerry's physical command of the debate space, Bush coming unglued, Kerry clearly articulating his positions, Bush's charges sounding hollow and unconvincing, Kerry looking presidential, etc.

But my favorite moment was when Kerry explained to the first questioner that the flip-flop charges were a tactic of a Republican campaign that was devoid of any substance.  Many people might find this to be an odd "favorite moment" but I thought it was critical.

Back to back, Fox has released bogus news stories on John Kerry.  First it was fake story with fake quotes about Kerry's "metrosexuality" and his cuticles.  Next it was the story about the Communist for Kerry.  I  find it absurd that this was a coincidence.

Much more likely, the Right is deliberately trying to draw a distinction between Bush and Kerry by showing that Kerry is pussy.

Enough is enough.  After 2000, Democrats should have gotten their act together.  Instead, they have gotten worse.

Aside from using federal tax dollars to help states buy e-cheating boxes, they have totally dropped the ball on felon issues, registration issues, and absentee issues.

In the last couple of months, we have been subjected to story after story of blatant cheating without a peep from the Democratic party.  Whether it has been the Florida felon list, illegal Nader balots, the "too light" registration cards in Ohio, or the news out of Colorado today, the Democrats have not done jack sh-t to stop it.

Well, enough is enough.  I gave the Democratic party 72 hours when the Ohio story broke.  So far, I haven't seen anything outside of the blogosphere.  The Dems have 24 hours to get their act together before I am out of here folks.  

It takes two to tango, as they say.  Why would Kerry agree to the faux-debates that have been planned?  

Bush's strength is in delivering mind-numbing homilies without fear of a followup questions.  If I were Kerry, I would do anything to force Bush to answer non-prescripted questions.  And I would insist on a format that permitted challenging Bush on whatever vacuous responses he will deliver.

Kerry could surely have shamed Bush into accepting the terms ("I have a number of questions for the President.  I can't believe he has nothing he would like to ask me.").

If the debates fail to permit Kerry to get Bush unhinged, we will regret this format for a long, long time.

I do like Dan Rather, he is definitely a throwback to a time when journalists took their profession seriously.   At his worst - going forward with a story that was insufficiently verified - he is no less accurate than the rest of the media on any given day.

That said, I have no problem chucking the guy over the side if it will help take Bush down.  I think the Democrats can definitely get more mileage out of the forgery angle.

I would like to see a major Dem call for Rather to step down.  Imagine the following statement: "Making serious accusations based on questionable documents is wrong.  Misleading the public without double and triple checking whether a document is genuine should have consequences.  I said it when George Bush failed to verify the Niger documents and it would be foolish not to hold Mr. Rather to the same standard.  I only wish the President cared as much about national security as he does his personal reputation."

The media would have to report it as the latest development in the Rather saga.

I think we can all agree that there has been much gnashing of teeth lately. Kerry should do this or that.  We should shut up or speak louder.  Kerry is doing terribly. Kerry is perfectly positioned.  The media won't give Kerry a break.  Kerry is sabotaging his chances with the media.  Kerry has a secret plan for his campaign.

What is going on?

I have never heard this idea before, but I would love to see Dean run for office in 2006.  There are a few reasons it might work.  Dean already has a name and a following, he has a proven track record as a governor, he would be working out of Albany not NYC, and as a Vermonter he might not be perceived to be such a carpetbagger.  He probably relates to upstate NY issues better than someone like Giuliani would.

Can you believe this?  Bush appears to have missed the deadline to get on the Florida ballot.

Apparently, the Democrats are not going to contest this.  No word yet on whether they will be actively campaigning for Bush, however.

The TV pundits, while recognizing that Cheney was over the line, demand that Kerry respond or be perceived as a wimp.  I agree.  It has already taken too long to respond in my opinion.  But anyway, this is what I would suggest.

Kerry immediately launch an ad pointing out:

(1) Cheney accused Kerry of taking the threat of terrorism insuficiently seriously.

(2) However, it is an absolutely true fact that in early 2001 Bush put Cheney in charge of anti-terrorism.  

(3) Cheney's task force met zero times.

(4) On the other hand, Cheney's energy task force met X times.

(5) Tag line: "When it came to protecting the nation against terrorism, Cheney had other priorities."

I recently received a fundraising letter from the DSCC.  In one section entitled "No tactic too low" David Rudd of the DSCC claims to have personally witnessed intimidation tactics.  He further lists several other examples of illegal actions by the GOP.  

There is an enclosed flyer entitled "5 Ways the GOP plans to Steal This Election".  It lists faulty felons lists, voter intimidation, electronic voting machines, a Tom Delay organization, and the possibility of delaying the election in the event of a terrorist attack.

Naturally, my reaction was "Are these people on crack?"

The GOP spin is already out:  Kerry asked for the Swift Boat Liars when he "made his Vietnam service the center of his campaign."  The AWOL story is unfair because Bush didn't make his military service part of his campaign.

The Democrats need to come up with a simple rebuttal to this.  They need to do it now. And they need to repeat it over the next week.  I would suggest that one of two responses are appropriate:

"George Bush made his record as a pilot an issue when he dressed up in a flight suit."

or

"The issue isn't Bush's military service.  The issue is his refusal to come clean since then."  Cite specific dates and times when Bush or his surrogates have claimed that he fulfilled his duties. (e.g. his autobiography)

No Democrat should concede that Bush has not opened himself to this line of inquiry. [UPDATE testing update feature]

I know that this has been commented on earlier, but it really seems like the GOP has figured out how to get preferable stories into the choice real estate.  Right now a George Will column titled "Bad News For Kerry" continues to push all the other negative stories away.

Anyone have a clue?  Is Google News hackable a la Google Bombs or does someone at the company have a liking for Bush?

I'm so sick of Democrats talking about leaving the country if Bush gets re-elected.  As bad as Bush's domestic policies are, they are not bad enough to flee America over.  And Bush's foreign policy is such that you won't be safe anywhere.

But even if it did make sense to leave on some level, I simply can't respect the cowardice of the thinking.  When the chips are down, you turn tail and run?  No doubt talk like this only emboldens so-called conservatives.  I'm sure they think, "See? Liberals don't really love America.  They aren't willing to fight for it."  And guess what?  They're partly right.

The Democrats had been the majority party in America for almost 50 years when Reagan was elected.  During that time Republicans didn't abandon ship.  They planned and plotted. They invested in the future.  They set up political infrastructure.  I may not agree with them, but I respect their tenacity.

So, if you are going to abandon the American liberal tradition, the Constitution, and the rest of us if Bush wins, then go now.  I'd like to know who's really only my side during the fight.  And you won't deserve to enjoy America's benefits when we win.

I am so sick of Democrats going on TV and just sucking.  I just saw John Glenn with Judy Woodruff.  Woodruff asked Glenn if Kerry brought the Swift Boat Liars on himself by focusing on his military record.  Glenn actually said "Yes, to some extent."  Sorry, but the correct answer is: "There is a difference between looking at Kerry's record and lying about it.  Veterans don't open themselves to lies about their records just because they talk about their service."

How hard is that?

Don't the Democrats notice that every time a Republican is on tv they spin, spin, spin?  Every tv appearance is treated like a political debate.  No matter what the question, they stick to the talking points, refuse to concede a point, and never speak bad about Bush.

Yet Democrats just trot out and say whatever is on their mind.  It never seems to dawn on them that these tv appearances are an extension of the campaign and that if they want Kerry to win they should use every opportunity to advocate for him.