Kerry hit a home run with his speech earlier tonight (a grand slam according to Barbara Boxer, but I think she has the hots for him), making A Penny's Worth even more confident about our prediction of a Kerry-Edwards November victory. If you're Dubya, you've got to be shaking in your boots about the debates, because let's face it, Kerry's going to eviscerate him. While he may be flawed-- apparently even his friends say he's tough to warm up to-- he's clearly a very smart guy. Whereas Bush... likes pretzels. Last time around in the debates, Gore was a boring policy wonk while Bush talked tough and seemed sincere. (Indeed he faked sincerity almost as well as Clinton.)

I have a friend who says that what America wants for our president is Captain Kirk. Clinton was definitely the Kirk against both Bush the elder and Dole; you could easily see him having sex with the 6 foot 2, blue-skinned blond chick in the groovy mini skirt, then getting back to the bridge just in time to blow up the Klingon battle cruiser. In 2000, Dubya was the Kirk; Gore was Spock. Sure, he was smarter than Bush. But the class nerd never beats the football captain for president, no matter what he got on his SATs. This time around Kerry, who APW would have called as the Dem nominee in February if we'd been around at the time based solely on his hair, will be the Kirk; Bush will be the Alfred E. Newman (What? Him worry? He dudn' even read the paper.) Kerry has the combination of smarts and command that always plays well with the voting public. Bush next to Kerry will look sadly un-presidential.

Of course APW must point out that Kerry called on Bush to run a mutually fair and positive campaign-- after taking every shot in the book at him, from Enron to the Saudis. To which APW says, good for Kerry. Politics is a dirty business, you have to play hardball to win, and Kerry continues to demonstrate that he is not above doing so, and that he just might be good at it. Whereas Gore grew a neat beard after losing.

I do wish Kerry would say who he thinks the terrorists are. I'd feel better if I thought he knew, and I'd like to ask him. But taking a shot at the Saudi oil princes-- that goes a long way around here.

The Great Comunicator himself, Ronald Reagan, beat Jimmy Carter by asking a simple question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" When an incumbent runs, the election is always a referendum on the last four years. Do people feel safer from terrorism and war now than they did four years ago? Do people feel better about their economic outlook than they did four years ago? If Kerry asks these questions-- and if the answers are no-- he'll waltz in. Note he did not ask these questions tonight.

Finally, there is the issue of the 3 TV networks not covering the conventions. Frankly, I don't blame them. It used to be that the conventions were real live, newsworthy, historical events. Now the nomination and Veep selection are nailed down weeks in advance, there is absolutely nothing going on at the conventions, and the whole thing is a giant half time show, an infomercial (and that goes for both parties.) (I'm just glad there was no sign of Hillary's breast.) I mean, Springsteen as Kerry entered ("No Surrender;" excellent choice) and U2 to exit ("Its a Beautiful Day.") The Republicans will be hard-pressed to pick better songs. And you'd best believe APW will be all over their musical selections if they are as lame as they might be. I mean, Toby Keith is a definite possibility.

But if the conventions have morphed from living history to infomercial, cable is where they belong. And I wouldn't steer you wrong, for a very good reason. I'm the president of the company. What possible reason could I have for steering you wrong about my product?

Labels: The politics