.

Kerry was out of line with his comments, and his idiotic claim that they were intended as a jibe at Bush makes him look even dumber than usual. And this guy is supposed to be the smart, nuanced, Democrat who was chosen as the standard bearer two short years ago? His "joke" doesn't even make sense.

Howard Dean could have done a lot of damage control if he had the nerve, and the intelligence, to step forward and say Kerry was wrong. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could also have done a great deal of good if they too had stepped up and admitted that Kerry had stepped in it.

Instead, we see the party circling the wagons for this loser once again, and the Big Tent Democrats are whining about why we don't just leave it alone and pray it goes away.

I have seen the audience's response described as laughter and gasps, but never cheers. Where did you see this description?

Drop the joker. Kick his butt out of office. I would call him a loser, but I think GOP operative would be more accurate.

  What he meant was "take advanatage of your educational opportunities or you run the risk of your opportunities being so limited that you might find it necessary to join the military to make a decent living and have a path for advancement."

  He did not mean to impugn the troops but he obviously did mean to warn kids that THEY could get stuck in Iraq if THEY did not study hard.

   At that point it was just a poor choice of words that the Republicans tied to seize on by giving the worst possible interpretation and one that clearly did not match Kerry's intent.

   Then because he's an arrogant ass, who like many politicians thinks he's clever enough to talk himself out of any trouble, he lied poorly trying to say his remarks were aimed at bush and not his audience. It was pitiful and no one believed him and served to give credence to the Republicans' allegations he was attacking the troops.  He could have ended the controversy by simply issuing a statement apologizing for inadvertently suggesting the troops are there because they did poorly in school and expressed his admiration for them and acknowledged that most of them are men and woman of distinction and honor serving their country by choice but standing by his statement that many do join the military for economic reasons and that education can give people other options that many would prefer.

  By LYING and refusing to apologize he gave the opposition the chance to let him have it with credibility they would have lacked if he hadn't been such an ass.

   Then belatedly, he gave a half-hearted apology still refusing to acknowledge the real meaning of what he said and (Thank God) slunk home with his tail between his legs.

  His only "mistake" originally was wording his comment so it sounded too general as if it encompassed all the troops present and future rather than being precise enough to make it clear he was speaking of what might result for individuals in his audience if they didn't prepare for higher education. It's what he did after that was a sorry spectacle and it's all HIS fault.

  The smart Democrats take that approach and don't try to give his lies credence. It's cold but, don't throw the drowning man a line if he's just going to pull you down with him.  

One is that the best you can say of Kerry is that he's awkward, arrogant, and a poor speaker and doesn't know how to handle a simple gaffe.  And that the dems thought he'd make a good president.  The republlicans have been saying worse, some of which may be true, but I was referring to the best that can be said, which is pretty bad.

I agree.  That, in fact, was my point.  Kerry was the best the dems could come up with.  Better folks haven't bothered to try to work their way up the dem ladder.  The same might be said for repubs, but the subject here is the problem Kerry poses for dems.

He was the best they could find.  And the dems either didn't care personally about his baggage, or didn't think it would make a difference.  To have that issue brought back to life is not good for dems.

  Even then, it's a big deal not because his blunder is likely to change many  votes in any race but because it hogs space that could otherwise be filled with other issues  that might either actually motivate  a swing voter still on the fence to vote Democratic, or perhaps more likely,  be a factor in some who would vote Democratic staying home or some who might have stayed home into voting Republican.

   Obviously, we wouldn't be regaled with so many Democrats awkwardly trying to dismiss Kerry  as  an issue and so many Republicans cynically exploiting him if he weren't one,  but that's more a reflection on the sorry state of both Parties than his true importance.

Let's assume Kerry is a fool.  Did he get big to get where he is, or did the dems get small?

I see it as standing in a group of people, from which those taller than you are systematically excused.  Presto, you're tallest.

Which is to say, if you weren't very tall to begin with, the folks left around you are shrimps.

Bush/Dukakis
Clinton/Bush
Clinton/Dole
Bush/Gore
Bush/Kerry

  I don't see much "stature" anywhere on that list, so while your observation about Democratic nominees is valid it is equally true about the Republicans.

Why would I be insulted by Kerry? For apologizing for telling the truth! You see, Dick Cheney could shoot a guy in the face and never apologize. In fact, the guy he shot in the face apologized to him!