WE.ARE.GONNA.WIN. I'd like to hear why.

[WilliamPitt]

You tell me.

[Jim Sagle]

1. OK.

[ReadTomPaine]

14. The answer in 0 words! Nice Jim! <n/t>

[American liberal]

2. in a word: grassroots

According to a recent Yahoo article, record numbers of people are registering to vote this year. Grassroots voter registration drives are occurring all over the United States and that work and the will of the people will easily offset whatever the Diebold machines calculate. I think the polls are full of shit. and are a corporate-owned media ploy to make the masses think that Bush has a chance. I won't go so far as to say "landslide," but based on the pulse I have been taking, Kerry has it in the bag!

Peace,
AL

[Demi_Babe]

58. I agree

[incapsulated]

3. 3 Reasons

1) Voter registration going through the roof, especially in swing states.

2) BIG viewing audiences for both Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates.

3) Worst. Administration. Ever.

[Guaranteed]

4. Because the idiots that support Bush don't care enough

to vote.

[lgardengate]

87. not true..my family and moms church buds etc will vote 4 sure

[lgardengate]

89. not saying we wont winn but don't count on Bush supports not 2 vote

[oasis]

5. Bush has become the most hated individual on earth. His credibility has

taken a nosedive and he's wilting under pressure.

[LittleClarkie]

6. A jazzed base

As someone said last week, Al Gore won his first debate in 2000 too. But we didn't stay up all night talking about how he'd won the debate, did we?

HQ was so energized the day after, I couldn't believe it. Some of the yard signs that were being saved for the great yard sign carpetbombing this weekend had to be released early so that all these new people wouldn't have to go away disappointed.

On Monday, I had trouble finding a computer or a phone to work on. I had to be put up in someone's office for a while there.

We be jammin'!

[BurtWorm]

7. Battleground States that were for Bush are going for Kerry.

The ones that went for Gore are not going for Bush.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04.html

Courtesy of montana500.

[evilqueen]

8. Because that is the only acceptable outcome. That's why. n/t

[Carla in Ca]

9. Here is why

[blondeatlast]

42. Freeway Blogger nails it again; excellent. nt

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

10. My top three reasons

1. Because too many of us are not better off now than we were four years ago.

Only a tiny percentage of Americans have felt the impact of terrorism. A much larger number of us have felt the impact of a poor economy and job loss. Bankruptcy and foreclosure are much more immediate fears, and are far more likely to strike us than a hijacked plane.

2. Because most people don't want a theocracy.

The Republican stance against science, gay rights, women's right to choose, and civil liberties for all unnerves a lot of people I know, and they recognize it as the creeping influence of the religious right. Whatever their own beliefs, most people support separation of church and state, which for over 200 years has protected this country from the kind of religious wars that divide and destroy other countries.

3. Because young people think George W. Bush is stupid.

They haven't been as affected by economical issues as their elders, and as far as the war is concerned, the draft issue hasn't really sunk in deeply enough to challenge youth's belief in their own invincibility. But they know Bush looks and sounds stupid, and that's not hip.

[Fridays Child]

11. Because, when Bush morphs into Cheney...

...you get this:


But, when Kerry morphs into Edwards, you get this:

[T Square]

75. Hey!

That John Kedwards morph looks like my old roommate!

[SoCalDemocrat]

12. #1 Pitt will expose Bush weaknesses on terrorism

#1 Reason is Pitt will write a scathing editorial covering the Bush failures in the war on terrorism. I've listed the top four that I'm aware of to start off the editorial research. What it needs now is a gifted writer (hint hint) to lift this torch aloft for all to see.

1. Bush failed to protect us from 9-11, completely ignoring terrorism.

2. Bush failed to protect us from Zarqawi.

3. Bush administration botched or leaked the identity of the Al Qaeda super mole which could of led us to Bin Laden, as well as rooted out every operating cell in the world.

4. Bush had Bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora, but then contracted Afghan Warlords who had been fighting for the Taliban a week earlier to go in and capture or kill Bin Laden. They of course were bought off and Bin Laden and many Al Qaeda escaped.


"One of the greatest coups in Washington's nearly three-year war against al-Qaeda has suddenly turned sour with reports the White House prematurely exposed the identity of a key source whose contacts and communication with the terrorist group's operational masterminds had yet to be fully exploited.

The source, 25-year-old computer wizard Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, had been cooperating with Pakistani police and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) since he was quietly detained in Lahore on July 12, until the New York Times published his name last Monday after receiving a "background" briefing by the White House.

The Bush administration, which had elevated the terror-warning level in three U.S. states on the basis of information acquired from Khan, set up the briefing to dispel public skepticism about the terrorism threat, particularly after it was disclosed that much of the information on which it was based was several years old. "

Amazingly Republicans are deluded into thinking this incompetent chimp is the best we can do to fight the war on terror?

[evilqueen]

13. Khan, khan, that name is familiar...

http://scoop.agonist.org/story/2004/9/4/133024/4615

Is that the October Surprise?

Pakistan: Chronology of Recent Events
This report provides a reverse chronology of recent events involving Pakistan and Pakistan-U.S. relations.
http://tinyurl.com/5xdkm
This is in google's html form rather than the pdf file.

[mcdot]

17. I hope it's true, I hope they get the bastard; however

I don't think it will save *'s ass--ppl will see it as the ploy that it is. Witness B. Bhuto (sp?) saying Musharraff (sp) pro'bly has the guy in his basement and that's where we should look. She said this at least a month ago.

[blondeatlast]

44. Can anyone give us citations or links on this?

Musharif wants USA's help badly and will do just about anything to get it, so this wouldn't surprise me.

I've been following the OTHER I/P (India/Pakistan) very closely, as my husband is an Indian emigre.

People have no idea of the volatility of the OTHER I/P.

[mcdot]

67. no shite/no text fricken liar

the truth shall set us free--liars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[evilqueen]

38. Compare Rice's statements

in the interview where she said she didn't know if Pakistan was using Khan as a mole, to this timeline of when Khan was picked up and when he outed other suspects.

[WilliamPitt]

16. O my God LINKS???

[evilqueen]

19. this shit doesn't make any sense

Why would someone from the White House leak Khan's name to the NYTimes? The info he was providing was nabbing al qaeda suspects, yet the info he provided was "three years old"???

For that matter, why send Wilson off to Niger on some wild goose chase and then leak his wife's identity to Novak?

[SoCalDemocrat]

25. it makes plenty of sense

The administration knew it needed to get an Al Qaeda win on the books early enough going into the Nov 2nd elections that it would have an impact on voters. They are on record as having told the Pakistani forces that they wanted them to make a big Al Qaeda bust, and they told them they wanted it to coincide with the DNC convention in Boston, going so far as to provide a timetable for the arrests.

Then Condi Rice outed the mole (or someone who worked for her) that set off the chain of hasty arrests.

The white house immediately took credit for winning the war on terror against Al Qaeda as evidenced by the arrests.

Had they kept their traps shut, we would of identified and captured or killed their entire network. It's almost like Bush wants Bin Laden to stay out there. What good is Wile E Coyote without the Road Runner?

---
Cofer Black said here Friday that nearly 75 percent of the al-Qaida terror network's senior leadership has been eliminated and the capture of its fugitive chief, Osama bin Laden, is closer than ever.

Update: Pakistan has played down Black's comments.

-
By Nick in Global War On Terror on Tue Sep 7th, 2004 at 06:24:46 AM PDT

Cofer Black, U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told a select group of journalists that the arrests of hundreds of al-Qaida activists and members of its top hierarchy by Pakistan have brought the arrest of bin Laden closer.
"If you are asking if we are close to getting OBL, the answer is yes," he said, when asked whether the large-scale arrests are leading to the capture of bin Laden, the prime suspect in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

---

Leaking the CIA operatives name was a pure revenge move. It will come out in the investigation.

[evilqueen]

28. ahhhhhhh

Had they kept their traps shut, we would of identified and captured or killed their entire network. It's almost like Bush wants Bin Laden to stay out there. What good is Wile E Coyote without the Road Runner?


Well, that's what I was thinking... they don't want to catch Bin Laden until this month (October), because they think it will hand Bush the election... or as long as possible, because it means profits.

Second thought: That's too simplistic, I think. There's more to it than that. Political power and even money and oil... is that enough to extend a war, or did they just get caught up in the insurgents/foreigners problem along the way?

[evilqueen]

30. James Cameron, VISA whistleblower

"A FOREIGN OFFICE diplomat who blew the whistle on an immigration scandal says he has been framed in a “dirty tricks� campaign by the government.

James Cameron, the British consul in Romania, has been secretly recalled to London after being accused of “criminal misconduct� by Whitehall investigators.

Cameron exposed dozens of scams including one involving a one-legged roofer given a visa to run a business in Britain. The revelations led to the resignation of a Home Office minister."
from - http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/archives/000358.html

"Also a leaked letter from Mr Cameron detailed some of the "scams", but the allegations were overshadowed by the high-profile arrest of terrorist suspects believed to be preparing a massive lorry bomb."
from - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/02/nblunk102.xml

The thing that caught my eye above is the mention of the one-legged roofer. Zahwhari (or however that name is spelled?) If so, that would explain why they yanked Cameron out of Romania to shut him up. Nice theory, anyway. :)

"Which one of those charged is the alleged "Bilal"/"Abu Musa al-Hindi," the supposedly Hindu born key Al Quaeda operative in contact with the allegedly compromised double agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan in Pakistan ? Is it meant to be Dhiren Barot?"
http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/archives/000432.html
lists the names of the suspects, the items they were found with (including maps of U.S. targets!), etc.

"Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, 25, who is under arrest in Pakistan, lived in a ground floor flat in Reading, Berkshire. The address, on Wensley Road near the centre of town, lies below a western approach flight path to the airport."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/08/nterr08.xml

[KittyWampus]

57. Read The Plame Threads... Why Would They Out Plame?

she was working on tracking WMD stuff that very might implicate Bush cronies... THAT'S why.

[SoCalDemocrat]

20. some links

1. Bush failed to protect us from 9-11, completely ignoring terrorism.

Point 1 has been covered to death with Richard Clark etc.

2. Bush failed to protect us from Zarqawi.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=993439&mesg_id=993439

3. Bush administration botched or leaked the identity of the Al Qaeda super mole which could of led us to Bin Laden, as well as rooted out every operating cell in the world.

I'll attach these sources to this thread.


4. Bush had Bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora, but then contracted Afghan Warlords who had been fighting for the Taliban a week earlier to go in and capture or kill Bin Laden. They of course were bought off and Bin Laden and many Al Qaeda escaped.

This was out of Kerry's debate points. I've read articles on it before but don't have them sourced up yet.

If you need more research just ask and we'll get a few hundred DU members digging up material for you.

I think when you build this story up along a timeline and summarize each major terrorism failing it really starts to punish Bush.

[SoCalDemocrat]

22. Bush administration outs super mole

This has got to be the worst intelligence blunder in U.S. history. We had the ultimate mole, who would of lead us to every Al Qaeda cell in the field.

George W. Bush is responsible for this. It was his adminstration, and more so his personal need to grab the headlines away from Kerry following the DNC, that lead to this colossal blunder.

Of course they don't even own up to it. The administration is jumping on the networks and proclaiming what a great accomplishment they've pulled off by rounding up some of these terrorists. They don't own up to the fact that they screwed up big time by losing this source.

The network news is being careful not to cover this. Wolf Blitzer shut this guy up today who started discussing the mole and that it was a major blunder, and they switched off that segment. I've watched all weekend for coverage to be given to this subject, but the networks aren't going near it. No doubt they have to protect their all important white house news feeds where they get 90% of their news from.

ADMINISTRATION EXPOSES SECRET SOURCE

The Department of Justice has strenuously argued that it could not release the names of detainees - even those who had not been charged or accused of terrorism - because doing so would harm national security. In a sworn affidavit, James Reynolds, then a top Justice Department official, argued that when people detained as part of a terrorist investigation are publicly identified, "terrorist organizations with whom they have a connection may refuse to deal further with them. This could eliminate valuable sources of information for the investigation. It would similarly impair the government's ability to infiltrate terrorist organizations engaged in ongoing criminal activities."<1> Apparently, this does not apply if the disclosure suits the administration's political agenda.

Last week, the administration was desperate to justify their decision to raise the threat level to orange in three states based on activity that occurred over three years ago. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice admitted yesterday that the administration - during a background briefing to reporters - identified Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan as the source of the information that prompted the terror alert.<2> According to Reuters, Khan "had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers"<3> His identification by the administration likely "cost the United States a valuable source."<4>


Sources:

1. "James Reynolds Affidavit," Chief, Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, Criminal Division, DOJ, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49605.>http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49605.
2. "CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," CNN, 08/08/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49606.>http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49606.
3. "Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation," MSNBC, 08/06/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49607.>http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49607.

4. "U.S. Says Man Had Ties to Plot to Disrupt Vote," New York Times, 8/8/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49608.>http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49608.
__
------

Rice admitted the ORANGE terror alert warning that the Administration pumped out was due to Khan. Also on record as telling Pakistan they wanted a major bust of an Al Qaeda figure made public by August 1st.

Administration raises terror alert level (in wake of DNC Convention)

Reporter's investiate and contact Packistani's, who give up name of Khan.

Reporters ask Rice, who confirms name of Khan.

Reporter runs story outing Khan as source of intelligence.

End result, we lose the best source of intelligence on Al Qaeda we could ever possibly hope to have. We lose our best chance of shutting down their networks.

This is the important link, where Rice acknowledges the day before the press ran the story, that our administration flipped the mole and gave up his name. Of course it was done "on background" so it's ok.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/08/le.00.html

[blondeatlast]

48. Thank you; I've bookmarked this thread for my hubby to read.

The OTHER I/P is volatile, and nobody knows it.

[SoCalDemocrat]

23. super mole outed

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/070904A.shtml

ADMINISTRATION EXPOSES SECRET SOURCE

The Department of Justice has strenuously argued that it could not release the names of detainees - even those who had not been charged or accused of terrorism - because doing so would harm national security. In a sworn affidavit, James Reynolds, then a top Justice Department official, argued that when people detained as part of a terrorist investigation are publicly identified, "terrorist organizations with whom they have a connection may refuse to deal further with them. This could eliminate valuable sources of information for the investigation. It would similarly impair the government's ability to infiltrate terrorist organizations engaged in ongoing criminal activities."<1> Apparently, this does not apply if the disclosure suits the administration's political agenda.

Last week, the administration was desperate to justify their decision to raise the threat level to orange in three states based on activity that occurred over three years ago. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice admitted yesterday that the administration - during a background briefing to reporters - identified Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan as the source of the information that prompted the terror alert.<2> According to Reuters, Khan "had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers"<3> His identification by the administration likely "cost the United States a valuable source."<4>


Sources:

1. "James Reynolds Affidavit," Chief, Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, Criminal Division, DOJ, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49605.
2. "CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," CNN, 08/08/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49606.
3. "Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation," MSNBC, 08/06/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49607.
4. "U.S. Says Man Had Ties to Plot to Disrupt Vote," New York Times, 8/8/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2775838&l=49608.

[SoCalDemocrat]

24. Super mole outing timeline

TIMELINE:

The Bush Administration increases pressure, both public and private, on Pakistan. It tells Pakistan they have until the end of July to come up with a major Al Qaeda victory.

July 17th, U.S. forgives $495 million dollars in external Pakistani debt in return for their assistance in the war on terror.

On Sunday, August 1st, Condoleeza Rice informs us that the administration provided the confirmation and name of the mole to reporters "on background"; which means the reporters were free to go to press with the name as long as they did not identify the administration source who gave them the intelligence.

On Monday, August 2nd, the NY Times ran the story publishing the identity of the super-mole and blowing a global anti-terror operation that was underway.

[SoCalDemocrat]

26. Tora Bora link - cached save it!

Story got scrubbed so save this cached version for editorials.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:TtGmPW0R8jUJ:www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,662005,00.html+Bush+contracted+Afghan+warlords+to+kill+Bin+Laden&hl=en

"The warlords had an interest in seizing the seats of power in each province, but their men had little incentive to trudge up into the snow to hunt through booby-trapped caves for an adversary they believed posed little threat, and for whom some may have had sympathies as fellow Muslims. Most importantly, al-Qaida members were able to pay local tribesmen more to let them go than the Americans had offered to kill them. Very few were caught or found dead. "

"In Tora Bora, the US military relied mostly on a local leader, Hazret Ali, who is reported to have sub-contracted the job of blocking the escape routes to Pakistan to a lieutenant, Ilyas Khel. "

"According to a detailed report in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor, Mr Khel was made a higher offer from al-Qaida Arabs to guide them through the ravines of the White Mountains into the tribal areas of western Pakistan. Others may have escaped to other areas of Afghanistan, including Paktia to the south-west. Afghan fighters have expressed astonishment at the lack of a US military presence there to seal it off. "

[blondeatlast]

46. Yes, PLEASE... this could be BIG. nt

[mcdot]

15. Massive voter turnout

I registered my son today at the SOT's office and asked how it was this year. The woman said they were INUNDATED. I registered my mother today (who hasn't voted since 1968) at the local DMV. I had three people ask me there about getting registered. I said, "just go up to the counter." This is Oregon.

My daughter and son-in-law, totally apolitical (Idaho), are now registered to vote.

ALL have registered democrat and will do anything to get shrubbie out.

My son's friend, a complete doofus who just turned 18, is registered to vote and is borrowing our copy of F911 to show his parents--both republicans with some serious questions. F911 is gonna straighten them out.

The kids don't want the draft, and my mom is terrified that I will leave the country if shrubbie wins, which I have sworn to do. Perhaps I am unfair to put an elderly, disabled old mother on the spot like that, but she WILL vote, as will the kids.

The only one who doesn't really give a shit and will NOT vote is my dad. He's a republican, but hates both candidates. Of course, he has a brain, but he also watches Faux and is distrustful of the evil internet spewing out just what we want to hear.

What is weird is, I am totally antisocial, don't work, and I have ONE friend. I got five people registered. DEMOCRAT.

MASSIVE VOTER TURNOUT.

I feel better every day, especially with the news of other states' last day registration swamps. I was curious as to how it was playing out here in Oregon, and apparently, it is the same, but we still got until 10-12 to register. All ballots here are mail-in.

[monarch]

27. Welcome to DU mcdot

I hope you can put up with more friends because you sound like somebody who is going to have alot of friends here.

[andino]

18. We are going to win because

each individual person that votes on November 2nd will voice their opinion on how bad Bush sucks. And Bush sucks REAL bad!!!!

[mcdot]

65. thank you so very much

I haven't done much; only what I could--I'm a hermit, and I got five ppl to vote Democrat across the board--NO pubs!

sorry guys--if they LOOKED at me, opposite party guaranteed.

Ana Amrikiya (I am amerikkkkan)

[CitySky]

74. don't worry, we're not looking

at you. You'll do fine here on DU. :hi:

Welcome, & thanks for getting out those votes!

[ibegurpard]

21. Someone brought up a good point, in my opinion, today.

Bush/Cheney have had four years of a lapdog press and a compliant congress. They've had to answer to no one. They've gotten "flabby." The Democratic candidates went through a brutal primary and are better prepared to handle a nasty campaign.

[baltodemvet]

29. Because

1. They've screwed things up so badly
2. The American people are smarter and more decent than they thought.
3. Kerry is decent credible smart candidate.
4. We're putting it on the line to make it happen.
5. Convoluted as it is our political system really is democratic.

[trumad]

31. I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this up above but

Bunnypants is under 50 percent in favorable ratings. That's death to an incumbant.

[JCMach1]

32. Here is my current thinking-- Kerry landslide

1. Dem. base turn out massively against *... Reps not as fired up by what they see as Bush's failures.

2. Massive interest and large turnout... I think we will easily eclipse 2000.

3. We have snowballing momentum from the debates. In a sense the VP debate 'winner' doesn't even matter, because the only thing people will remember are Cheney's lies and how cute Edwards looked.

4. Bush fatigue... all but his biggest supporters are going to bail. They may answer in a phone poll, but are they going to show on election day.

The election is looking more and more like 1980 to me rather than 1992. Kerry would be the Reagan in this metaphor. Too many people think the US is headed in the wrong direction and even the President's supporters are not excited about supporting someone who seems weak on the economy and who is unsuccessfully dealing with a situation abroad.

Apparently I am not the only one...

------------------------------------------
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/frank/article/0,18471,650116,00.html

...Yet despite Bush’s firm grasp of Reagan’s legacy, it’s John Kerry who might want to follow in Reagan’s footsteps now. Undoubtedly Karl Rove dreams of Reagan’s landslide reelection in 1984 when he sleeps. But this is not 1984. Back then the economy was a year into an impressive recovery, and American pride was experiencing a resurgence. Twenty years later, the latest survey by the Los Angeles Times finds roughly 60% of Americans polled believe the country is on the wrong track. With troops bogged down in a Middle East conflict and most voters still feeling uneasy about the economy, this election year has a lot more in common with 1980 than 1984.

Bush now faces the same challenge Jimmy Carter faced that year, and Bush has responded with a similar strategy. Knowing he had little good news to run on, Carter spent the campaign raising doubts about Reagan’s readiness for the Oval Office. Polls showed voters were unhappy with Carter but had serious doubts about whether an actor could handle the job. Carter attacked Reagan’s more conservative statements from past years, his musings on the need to radically reform Medicare and Social Security. Carter also implied Reagan could not handle the reins of foreign policy, painting the Californian as a warmonger who would launch nukes at the Russians as soon as he got his finger near the button.

“There you go again.” Reagan’s response to those attacks showed how gifted a politician he was. Not taking Carter’s bait, Reagan appeared confident and in control. Remembering the inherently optimistic nature of Americans, Reagan kept his campaign hopeful. Kerry’s challenge is to do the same. He took back his frontrunner status in the fight for the Democratic nomination by adopting some of Howard Dean’s red meat attacks on Bush. Now, however, as Bush runs relentless ads questioning Kerry’s leadership ability, (75% of Bush’s ads have been negative so far, according to one media research group) Kerry needs to find a measured response. He doesn’t want to appear as ineffective as Michael Dukakis did in 1988, but he doesn’t want to look nasty either. He still has time. About a third of those polled by the L.A. Times say they don't know Kerry well enough yet...

[JCMach1]

33. I remember in 1980 the media was predicting 'too close to call'

all the way up until the night of the election...

:)

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

34. Because there's no "Silver Lining"

The Bush Administration is like an over-ripe melon, and it's just not getting any better.

Afghanistan is under the control of drug lords.
Iraq isn't under anybody's control.
The economy is still not creating enough jobs.
The budget deficit is getting worse.
Our public schools are facing bankruptcy.
Ditto for Social Security.

I'm prefectly willing the offer that Bush couldn't help a lot of the things that have happened on his watch. Hey, sometimes bad things happen to loathesome people. But the problem here is that Bush doesn't have a plan for fixing the mess we're in.

No plan for Afghanistan and Iraq other than "stay the course."
No plan for creating more jobs that cutting taxes even more.
No plan for the budget deficit except to predict that it will be cut in half during the next four years.
No plan for public schools -- he think NCLBA was a success!
No plan for Social Security other than learn to love the taste of dog food.

Bush is going down.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

35. Our God is better than theirs.

And our penises are bigger.

[GumboYaYa]

36. Lawyers have a saying, "if the facts are on your side, pound the

facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table."

The Repugs have been pounding the table sindce their convention and it has gotten old to the voters.

[Justice]

37. New Answer -- The Internet

Original Answer: Because Democracy is Alive And Well
You don't appreciate democracy until you start to see it slipping (being taken) away.

On Edit: New Answer - The Internet. (first answer lovely, but this one is a winner).

Here is what the Internet has done for this race:

1. Contributions - it is easy to contribute small amounts of money - allowing Dems to compete financially with Republicans.

2. Media Workarounds. We can break thru the media barrier -- information to be transmitted via the Internet so the truth gets out. Communication is instant and global.

3. Community Not Isolation. On DU and elsewhere, we can see that many others share our view - we are not isolated. We become energized and challenged to participate - rather than turned off because we think we are alone.

I am convinced it is the Internet that is the difference.

[VelmaD]

39. I posted this the other day...

about my personal experience registering voters on Monday night.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2452920

We're gonna win because people who are willing to wait patiently in line for a half hour or more just to register are DAMN SURE gonna go out and vote. :)

[mumon]

40. Quite simply they believe their own bullshit...

Check out the Frank Rich article in today's Times.

That's why they're in "Ballad of a Thin Man" mode.

[Catfight]

41. Because Bush hates America for it's freedoms! n/t

[doubleplusgood]

43. Muslim voters

In 2000, Muslim voters went for * by 60%, IIRC. I think the last poll I heard for this year had * at < 10%. For comparison, there are more potential Muslim voters than Jewish voters, who are polling about the same for Kerry in 2004 as for Gore in 2000.

[maine_raptor]

45. Simpley because it's Time for a Change in political cycles n/t

[liberal N proud]

47. It's the stupidity, stupid

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/10/07_stupid.html
When you actullly see bush unscripted, the real bush shows.

[blondeatlast]

49. Because we have John Kerry and they have W.

NO CONTEST!

unless you're an idiot.

[Lars39]

50. Edwards scored a direct hit to Cheney

by bringing up Cheney's daughter. It underscored his hypocracy about the constitutional marriage ammendment. I predict this will have a huge impact on his religious base. They are not happy campers about his response to Edwards. Here's the Southern Baptist report on the VP debate:

http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=19291

Cheney gives tepid defense of marriage amendment
Oct 6, 2004
By Tom Strode
WASHINGTON (BP)--Vice President Dick Cheney’s tepid defense of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage during his Oct. 5 debate with Democrat John Edwards was certain to make supporters of such a measure glad George W. Bush, not Cheney, is president.

While adroitly defending the Bush administration’s position on the war in Iraq and other issues, Cheney provided unenthusiastic support for an amendment that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. Bush has endorsed the amendment, which fell short in recent months in both houses of Congress.

Cheney’s comments came in the midst of the sole vice presidential debate this election campaign. The event, which was held in Cleveland, Ohio, stretched seven minutes beyond the 90 minutes scheduled and covered both foreign and domestic issues.

When asked by moderator Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting System about the marriage amendment issue, Cheney reiterated a view expressed four years ago that people should be free “to choose any arrangement they want” but states should be the level of government at which relationships are authorized or not. “States have regulated marriage, if you will,” he said. “That would be my preference.”

More at link:
http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=19291

[Stephanie]

55. So I guess Cheney is saying, if my daugher Mary wants RIGHTS

let her move to Massachusetts.

[Lars39]

60. Yep, total hypocrisy.

He falls back on states' rights, defering to Bush. End result: he offended his religious base.

[ArkDem]

51. We have more bumper stickers.

[Beetwasher]

52. BUSH IS KERRY'S BITCH!!

You'll know who wins Friday right at the handshake. That's when I knew Kerry won last week. Kerry owns Bush and when they approach eachother it's evident and Bush feels inadequate every time and it rattles him. It's ancient and it's tribal and it's deep, but the handshake will give it away everytime when you have a man like Kerry up against a pathetic piece of waste like the Chimp.

[GreenArrow]

79. something happened in that vault

during a skull and bones initiation.

[Stephanie]

53. Do you know any Gore voters who are switching to Bush this time?

I didn't think so. What about Bush voters who are switching to Kerry? Anecdotal evidence indicates there are tons of them.

[KittyWampus]

54. We Were Sold A Defective Model In 2000. We Want Our Money Back Now.

[Clinton Crusader]

56. it slowly but surely crashing into people's brains...

that:

-Iraq was a HUGE mind blowing mistake. Now with the CIA report that Hussein didnt have a firecracker, let alone WMDs, I believe is making people stand back and say 'now wait just a flippin' minute...' All these dead soldiers, the beheadings, etc. and it was ALL unnecessary. Maybe Im just an eternal optimist, but I think people are finally getting it.

-The debates. We all know how abysmal smirk did, and now oil slick dick has turned up a liar. NO ONE from any political leanings, has caught Edwards in ANY lie. And John Kerry is now seen as 'more presidential' than smirk.

-The fear vs. hope for the future. ALL the RNC talks about is fear, more fear with a side dish of horror. With these 2 debates gone, people are seeing the lies and the govern-by-fear mentality.

-The UNBELIEVABLE amount of people registering all over the country. As a rule, people dont suddenly register to vote someone IN, but to vote someone OUT.
:kick:

[Cha]

59. For one or two things because

I heard with my own ears that John Kerry and John Edwards said we were going to win!

I just heard John Edwards say it on Regis and Kelly and I heard John Kerry say it on Letterman.

I really do believe and trust them and it is an Amazing feeling after four years of the chimp and the lech and neo fascism!

[pmbryant]

61. Because "the record speaks for itself"

The miserable, failing record of Bush and Cheney, that is.

And the noble record of John Kerry, too.

--Peter

[vetwife]

62. We are gonna win because truth prevails ALWAYS sooner or later

This selected resident can only use smear and fear and that is not leadership ...He lies and the koolaid eventually wears off.

[HFishbine]

63. Unprecedented Numbers of Individuals Working Their Spheres of Influence

For the first time in my lifetime, there are thousands of previously unmotivated individuals who are working on the periphery of organized efforts but largely off the radar.

We are going door-to-door in our neighborhoods without checking in with anybody first to register voters and distribute literature downloaded from the 'Net.

We are registering voters in our local pubs and bars -- doing so simply as individuals who know that our whiney friends are ready to do more than complain.

We are educating ourselves away from traditional sources (hello, DU) and armed with substantiated facts, we are writing letters to the editors of papers all across our respective states.

We are engaging the previously un-engaged. We are willing to spend hours talking to a single Libertarian who will not vote for Bush but isn't sure about Kerry.

We are, in short (even if it's too late for that), multiplying our individual worth by 5, 10 or even 20 within our unmeasured, unobserved spheres of influence.

----------
You can stop here. I've made my point, or you can keep reading this little anecdote.

I have an acquaintance who is a kick-ass pool player -- made even more impressive by the fact that he doesn't have any legs. I can beat him maybe once every fifth game if I'm at my best and he's a little tipsy. He loves to take advantage of my competitive spirit by enticing me to wager on our games -- usually $2.

My friend wasn't registered to vote and declined my initial invitation to do so several weeks ago saying he "hates politics."

A few nights ago, he offered our typical $2 wager. I counter offered: $10 if I lose, he registers to vote if I win. Agreed. He made the eight ball on the break and I coughed up $10.

I offered a rematch with the same wager. This time I did a little better. It was down to both of us shooting at the eight ball. He won. I coughed up another $10.

I offered a third match with the same wager again. He broke and made nothing. I ran six balls. He ran the rest of the table. I coughed up another $10.

I was done. Defeated, deflated and, it turns out, pitied. My friend said he'd register anyway because he saw how important it was to me and he respects me. Now he's willingly reading articles I stick in his hand and last night took home a Kerry Kit. I don't know how he'll vote, but he's registered, thinking about the issues and the candidates and ready to have me drive him to the polls. Off the grid; under the radar.

Oh yeah, after I registered him, we played one more game of pool just for fun. I crushed him.

[evilqueen]

83. Excellent n/t

[many a good man]

64. Apply Ockham's Razor

meaning the simplest explanation is the best. The simplest explanation here is to recall Lincoln's wise observation...

You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Postscript: William of Ockham was a Franciscan, not a Jesuit!

[txindy]

66. All of the reasons stated above, plus

the turnaround I have witnessed here in the Texas Hill Country. Yes, it is more liberal than other parts of TX, but it also went big for * four years ago. Not this time. There are K/E signs everywhere, even large campaign signs along major roads -- and those signs stay there day after day! Unharmed! This is unheard of! :wow:

If you had told me six months ago this would take place here, I would have called you a dreamer.

Texas is in play. I can feel it. At the very least, it will be a squeaker in this state.

As for the rest of the country....? President Kerry. Definitely. And it won't even be close. :headbang:

[CrowNotAngelGRL]

68. Here's my reasons

1) More people are caring and want a better future for themselves, their kids, grandkids etc. and they know Kerry can give it to them.

2) Karma is finally bitting Bush's ass

3) New voters (like myself) who are young are seeing everything going on and voting Kerry. Plus, it doesn't help for all the new movies out. ;)

[DinahMoeHum]

69. Bush and Cheney can't keep marketing chicken shit as chicken

salad forever. The odor has becoming too much, and even those 'Puke supporters with a nasty cold can smell it.

It's gonna be like 1980 - the media will try to portray it as close - but it won't be. Not when you take all those first-time voters (many of them young people) into account.

:kick::kick::kick:

[ollie3]

70. We are going to win because....

Kerry adopted an aggressive attack on Bush's Iraq policy and confronted the security issue head-on instead of trying to change the subject to the economy like his previous advisors had suggested. You could see this coming in the speeches he made in the week or so prior to the debate, and his debate questions "took it to" Bush on Bush's pet issues. The result: an energized base, and a clear message that counteracted the Rep flip-flop meme. Undecided voters needed a reason to vote for Kerry, just being ABB wasn't enough. By showing that he has an energetic message, Kerry showed leadership skills and this attracted undecided/independent voters. In short, Kerry will win because he listened to the advice of folks like Howard Dean and Wes Clark. You could read Kerry's new speech and comments in the debate right out of the Wes Clark's words. No doubt he was advising Kerry, especially on the points that Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror, and we had Bin Laden cornered, things Clark was among the first to say. Kerry also brought this up at precisely the right time, and timing is everything. The Swift Boaters and the Republican attack machine actually set Kerry up for the first debate: all Kerry had to do was look presidential and he changed significantly people's views of him. I have a hunch that we will see some more pleasant surprises in upcoming debates. Kerry is taking them seriously, and he shows no signs of backing down.

[WilliamPitt]

71. .

[cmf]

72. Because the Kerry campaign is working hard to expose people to the truth

While Bush/Cheney are spinning the same tired lies.

[WI_DEM]

73. because the debates have exposed Bush and Cheney as the

liars they are. Also exposed Bush as an incompetent. They showed a John Kerry who is in command. Who is a president. Who has a sense of history. People were looking for a reason to get rid of Bush. Kerry one on one with the president gave them the reason. He reasured the people who wanted to get rid of Bush but weren't yet sold on Kerry.

[AnIndependentTexan]

76. There is just something about Kerry that makes the world change

[guitar man]

77. Easy

We're 3 million+ jobs and over 1000 dead troops from where we were before this disaster known as the Bush administration took over. All they have to offer is more dead kids and scooping the economic opportunity of the working class into the pockets of corporate parasites. Not a very bright future.

If this nation does elect the Boy Despot for another term, it quite frankly deserves what it gets. But I don't think that's gonna happen. I think Rove has underestimated the collective intelligence of the American people and all the spin in the world won't fix it for them.

[MoonRiver]

78. bush* is a stupid, uninformed, practically illiterate warmonger.

He's responsible for the death of over 1,000 Americans on the basis of a baldfaced LIE. And, the citizens of this country finally seem to be getting it, despite a rightwing media cheer leading squad, which is in the back pocket of *'s neocon puppeteers.

[West Coast Democrat]

80. Because we want it more!

[Bleacher Creature]

81. Oil Prices

It's obviously not THE reason, but it is a big story and will be even bigger if we push it. Seriously, this is one we are truly underestimating.

[NEDem]

82. massive organization at grassroots level

I've watched and worked through many pres elections and NEVER, I mean NEVER have I seen the Democrats more organized, energized and united.

[Robert Oak]

84. because we are passionate and Bush supporters are lukewarm

[Hans Delbrook]

85. One Word...

Momentum.

All my life, as long as I've been following elections (since, let's say '72) I've heard that it's death to be headed down in polls/popularity right before an election. Conventional wisdom (for what it's worth) has always been that it's better to be slightly behind and moving up than slightly ahead and moving down! Like Bush is..

Funny thing - I've been waiting all week for someone - anyone - to bring this up. I especially remember them harping about it in '80. But no one has - isn't it funny?

[demgrrrll]

86. There was a thread here tonight that noted Bush will have 5,000 people

bussed into Missouri for a rally. If Missouri is so pro Bush why does he need to bus ONE person let alone 5,000. Very telling. He is going down.

[ZombieNixon]

90. Welcome to DU, FAWATSON

Very astute observation. Conventional wisdom turns out to be right more often than not.

[blue neen]

88. Because Kerry gives us hope again.

That's why everyone is so energized and willing to work at the grassroots level. Kerry is a great candidate; he's the real deal.

Bush stole the election in 2000, and we're not going to let that happen to us again. Four years of this administration has been BRUTAL to this country in every way. People have had ENOUGH.

[CalProf]

91. An answer from 1944

Because people like my parents, who endured the depression, and like my father, who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and who (were) so Republican they didn't even vote for Roosevelt, let alone Kennedy or Truman, are, for the first time in their lives, going to vote for a Democrat for President.

And because of people like you, Will, who got a lot of us, like me, off our butts back when it looked hopeless.

We will win because, at last, we are fighting, some of us for the first time in our lives.

And there are hundreds of thousands of us, and on November 3rd (my birthday), when we've won, I will get down on my knees and thank each and every one of you, for the sake of my two children, and their children, and theirs.