Why do Republicans win so many damn elections? Because they know better than to air their dirty laundry in public (especially during an election year). Reverse that and you see why the Democrats are always playing catch-up. The only thing Democrats love more than bashing Republicans is bashing each other.

Now there’s a good argument to be made for playing the expectations game and trying to make people underestimate Kerry in the run-up to the debates, but there’s a fine line between that and “emboldening” our political enemies. The Bush team are some of the most gifted political mud-slingers in the world. If you’re a fair-weather friend to our candidate, then you’re doing half of Karl Rove’s job for him.

As Digby said recently, our side could really use some discipline :

I enjoy backseat campaign managing as much as the next person. And I admit that the press and our inability to manage it profoundly depresses me. But, I NEVER say we are going to lose. I love to analyze the race and offer my ideas, but it is never done in the spirit that the Kerry campaign are a bunch of losers.
. . .
I just wish that Dems could put on their game faces and try to sell the guy a little bit instead of constantly writing his epitaph. He’s really a good man, you know. He’s spent his life in public service, trying to do the right thing, working hard and carrying our agenda. He’s our most liberal nominee in decades. He’s smart and energetic and he’s never been tainted by corruption or scandal. Is it so hard for Democrats to get behind a man like this or are we just as shallow as everybody else? Would we too be happier with a brand name in a suit?

No matter how annoyed you may get at John Kerry or his campaign, don’t forget that your vote isn’t a gift for him. It’s a gift for yourself and your country.

I’ll be the first to admit that my vote is for completely selfish reasons. I personally don’t want to live through another four years of George W. Bush. Yeah, I care deeply about our soldiers stuck in a quagmire, the people living in deperate poverty, and those who live in terrorist targets that aren’t being adequately protected, but mostly I just don’t wanna see that fucking smirk every day until 2008. Two years ago I made the decision that I’d vote for just about anybody to get rid of him and I’m sticking to it.

As Jonathan Chait wrote a week or two ago, if getting rid of Bush means helping prop up a weak campaign, then so be it :

If John Kerry loses the election, and quite possibly even if he wins, the main thing people will remember about his campaign is how utterly bizarre it was that a major party nomination could have been captured by a man so staggeringly devoid of political talent.

The first job of a candidate is to win the election, a task to which Kerry seems spectacularly ill suited. This is not to say he won’t beat President Bush, only that Kerry’s contribution to a potential Kerry victory would be similar to the anchor’s contribution to an America’s Cup championship. Lest you think I’m exaggerating, some of Kerry’s strongest supporters have explicitly likened him to ballast.

“I don’t care if John Kerry is a sack of cement,” former Texas Agricultural Commissioner Jim Hightower said in June. “We’re going to carry him to victory.”
. . .
If Kerry does not stage a comeback (and he well might ? I lend great credence to the cement sack strategy), the natural next step is for people to rationalize his failure. If he can’t run a campaign, the argument goes, he would never have been able to run the White House.

That sounds reasonable enough unless you consider the fact that George W. Bush is a highly competent campaigner but a flaming disaster of a president. And it is exactly those things that make him so ruthlessly effective on the stump ? centralized authority, Comintern-like party discipline, total disregard for the truth ? that have created a hermetically sealed petri dish in which bad policies come to life and are carried out unchallenged.

I’ve heard so many wishy-washy liberals lately say “If he won’t defend himself, can he defend us against terrorists?”. Well, if being a ruthless campaigner is the most important criteria for you, go vote for Bush. But before you do, let me remind you that the guy who’s doing such a great job against his political opponent has done a pretty shitty job against al Qaeda.

I think there’s a serious problem with the way we choose our leaders if there’s a significant difference in the skills needed to get the job versus the skills needed to do the job, but that’s a post for another day. For now, I must say that I’m extremely disappointed that so many people on our side are willing to lose their resolve because they’re displeased with the way John Kerry has run his campaign. This election is about a lot more than John
Kerry and George Bush, it’s about the direction our country is going to take. Even if Kerry doesn’t want to defend himself, if you want him to be the next President, then you should fight for him every chance you get.

Could you imagine a Bush supporter conceeding in a debate that he’s flip-flopped on anything? Of course not, yet that’s what I hear all the time from liberals who are “defending” Kerry. He’s our candidate and we should be fighting for him every step of the way. Until November 2nd, the phrase “Well, yeah, but…” shouldn’t be part of your vocabulary. If somebody accuses Kerry of being inconsistent, say “bullshit” and explain why. If somebody mentions the $87 billion, read Kerry’s comments from the senate floor and explain why he voted against it. In short : Regardless of how good or bad Kerry’s campaign is doing, you should fight back, stay on message, and don’t budge an inch until after the election.

(I should also mention that I think people have been vastly underestimating the Kerry campaign anyways. We’re more than a month away, have four debates to look forward to, and most Americans don’t like Bush or know anything about Kerry. Once people see that Kerry’s a serious and trustworthy guy who’s got a good plan for America, I’m convinced he’ll take the lead.)