Dear John

John Kerry keeps plugging away.

I received yet another e-mail from John. As always, it included the familiar red bar pushing for contributions.

The content of the message is usually secondary. What matters is getting that "make a contribution" button out to as many people as possible, as often as possible.

John uses two pretenses for his fund-raising e-mails. They are sent under the guise of a petition drive or the announcement of what he considers to be one of his major speeches; but accompanying all the messages is a reminder to send money to John.

His most recent communication revolves around a petition effort, "20,000 Troops Home Over the Holidays."

It reads:
America can no longer tolerate the Bush administration's failed "stay as long as it takes" approach to the war in Iraq. It is time for Congress to demand and for George W. Bush to deliver a clear, concrete plan.

As a first critical step in that direction, I am calling on the Bush administration to respond to the completion of December elections in Iraq by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the holidays.

The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to "stay as long as it takes." To undermine the insurgency, we have to simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks.

The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of 2006.

If George W. Bush refuses to produce a concrete plan for Iraq, then, at the start of 2006, we will demand that Congress acts to take the decision out of his hands. And, if the Republican Congress fails to call the Bush administration to account, we will use the 2006 elections to take the decision out of their hands. We won't stop until we succeed.

Your name here

First, if I were advising John, I would gently suggest that he not use the word "plan." It's just bad karma. Every time he says it, I'm reminded of his lack of substance and all of the empty, meaningless plans that he claimed he had.

Second, John knows a petition like this appeals to the radical far Left. He wants to win over the fringe of the Democrat base by pushing to withdraw troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions there. John, although he was a "D" student, is smart enough to understand that he absolutely must have the support of the radical Left if he is to have any realistic hope of securing the Dem nomination.

I think by these silly token moves, like this petition about bringing troops home, John thinks he can win the approval of the rabid anti-Iraq war Left, a group that's not at all happy with Hillary's stance.

John is making irresponsible statements about setting concrete dates for American troop withdrawal from Iraq, similar to Russ Feingold's idiotic call for a December 31, 2006, deadline to have all American troops out of that country.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has said that concrete timetables for American troop withdrawal would be disastrous. According to al-Jaafari, it would be a sign of weakness. If the kind of specific timetable that John is suggesting materialized, the Iraqi PM believes, "The country would be open to increased terrorist activity."

Timetables are dangerous. Even "D" student John must be able to grasp that.

I think his petition is insincere. That makes his appeal that much more shameless. It's all about political opportunism and money.

John needs to come to terms with the fact the he will never be president.

Beyond that, it's not clear if he has been able to accept the fact that he lost the 2004 election.
Raw Story writes:

The author, New York University professor Mark Crispin Miller, told Democracy Now and Air America's "Morning Sedition" the senator had confided in him at a fundraiser Friday, saying he believed the election was stolen after Miller offered Kerry a copy of his new book.

...Kerry's campaign quickly denounced the claim.

"I know Mr. Miller is trying to sell his book and he feels passionately about his thesis but his recent statements about his conversation with Senator Kerry are simply not true," spokesperson Jenny Backus said.

...Miller told Democracy Now Kerry "told me he now thinks the election was stolen. He says he doesn't believe he is the person that can be out in front because of the sour grapes question. But he said he believes it was stolen. He says he argues with his democratic colleagues on the hill. He said he had a fight with Christopher Dodd because he said there's questions about the voting machines and Dodd was angry."

Miller was shocked to hear of Kerry's denial.

"I call that contemptible," Miller told RAW STORY. "That's completely false."

This is an intriguing little disagreement, a "he said, he said" thing.

I found these lines especially interesting:
Backus said Kerry would have fought to reverse the election's outcome if he believed the election had been stolen.

"Make no mistake, after pouring his heart and soul into the campaign and seeing George Bush continue the mess he created, if the election had been stolen John Kerry would be fighting them today to reverse the outcome," she said.

Do you think this will set straight all those Dems still harboring the notion that the 2004 election was stolen?

John's spokesperson vehemently denied that the election results were invalid. She states in unequivocal terms that John LOST to George W. Bush.

Time for the delusional Dems to let that go.

I know it's difficult for them. It's difficult for John.

Dreams die hard.

Poor John.