Soros on Kerry

I don't want to get into this too much. As a Kerry supporter, I feel it's a touchy subject. However, I think Kerry's position on Iraq would be (and would have been) easier to understand if he had stated clearly that the goal of his policy would be to bring the troops home ASAP. Kerry was most fond of pointing out Bush's failings (i.e., dead troops - something most people were already aware of) what he should have done was to clarify the end game. Kerry alluded to having a somewhat less lofty goal for Iraq, namely stability versus the goal of a full-fledged democracy. If that doesn't imply wanting to get the troops home sooner rather than later, then what does it mean?

Of course, the reason Kerry didn't want to put the words "troops" and "home" in the same sentence is because Bush would claim Kerry wanted to "cut and run." Thing is, Bush claimed that repeatedly, anyway, so there would seem little left to lose in claiming the goal ought to be bringing our troops home.

This might have been enough to convince the media that Kerry's position was actually different from Bush's - something they never could quite convince themselves of. I can understand this. Kerry's argument was basically that he could do Bush's job better, not that he would do it differently, and therein lies the problem.

[UPDATE]: There's another issue here I've neglected to mention. It was first raised by Errol Morris in a Times op-ed from January 18th. The rationale for Kerry's campaign was built largely on his war record, less on what he did when he came home. Some believe that by neglecting to talk much about his years as a war protester he opened himself up to the swifty smears and also left a part of himself out of the campaign. I'm still thinking about all this, but my feeling is regardless, it would have had little effect on the election results.