Appearing on the broadcast of "A Concert for Hurricane Relief," Kanye West noted that America is set up "to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible."

Then he said that "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

West's remarks were deleted from the west coast broadcast of the show.  According to the AP report, "There was a several-second tape delay, but the person in charge 'was instructed to listen for a curse word, and didn't realize (West) had gone off-script,' said NBC spokeswoman Rebecca Marks."

Off-script?  Does NBC mean to say that people appearing on its broadcasts must follow a script?

And what script might that be, Ms. Marks?

Voices from all over the political spectrum have observed that the Democratic Party has no stated policy, as a unified party and in clear terms, for what America should do about Iraq.  Sadly this is true.  Even more sadly, this is not surprising.  Since 9/11, the Democratic Party has been rarely willing or able to say anything on any subject as a unified party and in clear terms.  

Recent polls demonstrate that the American public is not satisfied with the present course in Iraq.  Even some Republicans, notably Congressman Walter Jones, are challenging the Bush administration on its conduct of the war and occupation.

Other polls show that Americans are losing confidence in and patience with the Republicans, as a party.  However, this is not transferring into confidence in or any tendency to support the Democratic Party.

What should Democrats do? My short answer: Find out what went wrong and fix it. My proposal, offered in all humility, is below the fold. I invite and would appreciate any and all comments.

Jimmy Carter apparently believes that Al Gore would have made a better candidate and would have won if he had been the nominee in 2004.  I am not saying I agree or disagree, but I am saying it is an interesting question.

This question, along with moderate alcohol consumption, fueled quite a few discussions during the last eighteen months.  Some comments from those discussions, some not mine.

Negatives.

• Gore was viewed as a loser not just by the SCLM but by the majority of Democratic elites.

• The "Gore Is A Liar" meme was so firmly fixed in the minds of voters that it would have been impossible to campaign effectively.  

• Gore had no more cred on Iraq and national security than Howard Dean.

• He would have had to eject Lieberman and he would have been punished for it by Jewish voters.

Poll added.

Every single blog to the left of Joe Lieberman is filled with posts expressing anxiety about the Kerry campaign.  This anxiety results, in part, and is triggered by Bush moving a few points ahead during the week of his party's convention.  But that is no reason to get squirrelly.  Arguably, Bush is an incumbent running as a war leader.  He should be ten-plus points ahead.

What Kerry is not doing is saying, in plain and simple terms, why America needs to change presidents.  Showing that the incumbent needs to be replaced is the predicate not just a part of the campaign, it is the whole reason for the campaign.  Kerry must make the case that Bush has failed.  Fortunately, the case is not impossible to make.  Unfortunately, Kerry/Edwards and the DNC have been reluctant, to date, to directly address Bush's only two strengths:  War on Terror and Iraq.