That sound you hear is Howard Dean (search) and the Deaniacs gnashing their teeth.
It sounds like the grinding of gears and if it continues to sound like a loud and painful grinding, John Kerry will have a problem. If it quiets down, it will probably be George W. Bush who has the problem.
Here's the deal: the Democratic Party is anti-war. It got its base all energized and excited during the primary season being anti-war.
That's what Howard Dean was all about: War is wrong, this war is really wrong and we shouldn't have gone to war. And they're so sure they're right about this, they'll even say yes when conservatives ask “Do you mean to say you'd rather Saddam were still in charge in Iraq and there had never been an invasion?”
“Yup,” they'll say. “Yup, yup, yup.”
The other day Bob Beckel revealed the Democratic argument that will be rolled out in earnest in a month, or two: Wouldn't you give Saddam back to have back the thousand young Americans who have been killed? Trying saying no to that one.
But the problem is, Kerry is pro-war. He gave a war speech. He said he's tough. He said he wouldn't give the United Nations or France the right to veto our use of our military. He said at the first provocation he would respond with force, with brutality, with war.
This may be good for a bunch of swing voters who actually support the right reasons for the war and don't want to go backwards and who may be upset with how President Bush has been handling things.
But it can't be good for Kerry's core supporters who are anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-hostile, truculent, brutish rhetoric from an American president.
They are the people who wrote the Dem platform: It says no war.
But they have a candidate who says I can do war better than the other guy.
See how it could be the left who are most angered by Kerry?
That's My Word.
What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at firstname.lastname@example.org. Some of your e-mails will be featured on the air or on our site.