Originally Posted by honestchipmunk

This is my first real post. It hurts a little bit, but generally it feels good...

So I took my university's PS 1 back two years ago when I was a freshman and my professor explained how election politics work in such simplicity that I have to repeat his view here.
He told us that running for an office is all about staying on your message in what you talk about to people and the press, whatever it is: bombing terrorists, loving babies, kicking homeless people, whatever. The idea is to get your opponent off his message and make him have to spend his time explaining irrelevant things. While he or she is explaining the irrelevant thing, you get to hammer in your message with the people. Thus the image that comes off is that you look like a candidate for your office while the other person can't stop talking about and explaining things that don't really matter.
Clearly, this applies to the current election.
Now, what I don't understand is that if this information was available to me in a lower division PS 1 class, WHY DOESN'T KERRY'S CAMPAIGN ADVISORS KNOW ABOUT IT? It makes no sense. He just keeps talking about Vietnam and blah blah blah. All the while Bush gets to talk about policy and what he's going to do with the next four years.
Yuck.
I say: Bartlet in '04! (Not really, but that would be cool, wouldn't it?)