"a stable, free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders."

[Ivo Skoric]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/campaign/26POLI.html?pagewa
nted=1&th

Bush and Kerry differ domestically, but on the matters of foreign 
policy they look scarily similar: they both support Sharon's Israel, 
and they would chart the same course for Iraq.

Kerry will never get elected if he does not drop support for Sharon. 
The small, but powerful circle of pro-zionism lobbyists that makes US 
politicians tremble, will in the end support Bush, anyway. And Kerry 
will be left holding the bag, as he is alienating other sources.

On Iraq, however, Kerry, unlike Nader, cannot promise US troops home 
by Christmas. Because, again, unlike Nader, Kerry may get elected 
president, and then accused for giving false promises. The fact is 
that at this point it is neither realistic nor beneficial to anybody 
for US troops to just leave the chaos they made.

That makes Kerry the hostage of the incumbent president's wrong-
headed foreign policy. Worse, Bush is stealing clues from Kerry's 
plan for Iraq, and taking credit for them. Kerry was the first to say 
that the US should aim for "a stable, free Iraq with a representative 
government, secure in its borders." But Bush was broadcasted in prime 
time on all TV networks making sure that the nation believes that was 
HIS idea.

Why would people vote for Kerry if he would not do anything different 
than Bush? Then, they can stick with the incumbent. And Bush is going 
to make sure that it appears that he would not do anything different 
than Kerry, sending the message to the people: why bother voting for 
that other guy, when I would do the same?

With Nader in the equation to take the vote of the people that oppose 
the war on principle, Kerry's perspective may be grim. Either he 
needs to adopt radical Nader's position, on which he will ultimately 
not be able to deliver, but it would help him win the elections (the 
Clintonian way), or he needs to come up with the plan, that is 
workable on one hand, but so detestable to Bush's camp on the other 
hand, so they don't copy it in the next Bush's address to the nation.

Nader's campaign should focus on defeating Bush. Otherwise they will 
be defeating Kerry. Since Nader is unlikely to win presidency, his 
campaign is free to run the ultra-negative smear campaign against 
Bush, alienating the mainstream voter - both from Nader and from 
Bush, and increasing the percentage of those willing to vote for 
Kerry. This would leave Kerry's campaign able to run just positove 
ads - not even mentioning the incumbent president, and focusing just 
on all the good and all the right things Kerry would do if elected. 

Bush campaign would be left with the no-win options to waste 
resources defending Bush against a non-opponent Nader, or alienate 
swing voters base by bad-mouthing the good guy Kerry. I am not sure 
whether such political co-operation and co-ordination between 
candidates is possible in the U.S. But it could work.

ivo