I also understand he's a Kerry supporter. And today, he made a lengthy, detailed, and thought-provoking post on his blog explaining why he thinks Kerry is headed for a defeat.
It is unsparing and smart, and not without some good points about Bush's missteps, as well. Read the whole thing. But here are some key excerpts:
I know, I know, there's still a lot of election left, and it will be amazingly close. But here's the reality I see: Bush looking good enough in the electoral and leading the popular vote in half the polls by a substantial margin (beyond error factor) and leading just barely or tied with Kerry in the other (inside the margin of error). So I see a mass of polls whose collective judgment is "Bush by a bit or just barely," and almost none that say "Kerry by a bit."
If the debates were like a huge touchdown drive to start the 3rd quarter and suggest a staggering Kerry comeback, what's happened since has been like a dogged but successful recovery of a fumble and drive to the 30-yard-line for a field goal that puts the Republicans just enough in the lead to run out the clock...
Americans feel insecure after 9/11 and know this country must do more vis-à-vis the global security environment. They also know that effort must concentrate first and foremost in the Middle East, because that's the essential frontline in any war on terrorism is logically found.
So, to an amazing degree, they supported the war in Iraq even as they are now deeply disconcerted and feel betrayed by the performance of our political leadership in overseeing the subsequent occupation. Why Bush will likely win this election is because Americans prefer the sense of steadfastness during difficult times, and they perceive that more in Bush than in Kerry, who insists on speaking about the "wrong enemy" and the "wrong war," when Americans are watching videos of beheadings in the Middle East and instinctively understand that-no matter how we got to this point in the war-"those people" certainly look like our enemies and our loved ones are dying in this conflict, no matter how some may judge the incorrectness of our battlefield choice.
Plus, the Republicans are waging an effective one-two punch with Bush's "mission of spreading liberty" (a bit over the top, but an appealing "happy ending" in the absence of anything else) and Cheney's constant harping about Kerry not being focused on his understanding of the threat/enemy/nature of the conflict. Kerry and his people counter badly on this, and it underlies their essential mistake in this campaign.
Terrorists attack America on 9/11 and we have three essential choices for reply: hunker down in "homeland security," go out and kill them as fast as we can, or . . . think strategically about what the terrorists seek to achieve with this form of warfare and get there first. Bush's message of "spreading the power of liberty" (see "In Bush's Vision, a Mission To Spread the Power of Liberty," by David E. Sanger, New York Times, 21 October 2004, p. A1) answers-albeit simplistically-that strategic challenge: we seek to connect the Middle East to the Core faster than the Osamas and Zarqawis can disconnect it and by doing so, set it motion a long-term movement toward individual political liberty and-more importantly-economic opportunity-that is sadly lacking there. That is a happy ending, and it's one designed to make Americans feel better about themselves and our role in history, and you know what? That's awfully damn smart of the Republicans, because you never motivate anyone to sacrifice through shame and derision...
So, much to my dismay, Dems have let themselves be cornered into arguing only tactics (much like Anonymous's book, another in a long list of downer volumes designed to make Americans feel bad and stupid about the world-a winning tactic in motivating the public toward sacrifice if ever there was one), while the Republicans own the market on vision and happy endings...
I have said it before and I will say it again: the more optimistic candidate wins national elections, and despite the great mishandling of the Iraq occupation by this administration (yet another damning article today in the Times by Michael Gordon on page 1: "Debate Lingering on Decision To Dissolve the Iraqi Military"]), their mindless alienation of allies around the dial, and the growing sense of strategic despair both have created throughout far too much of the U.S. military, Bush and his campaign have managed to seize the high ground of both grand strategy and an optimistic vision of the future, leaving Kerry and the Dems to mutter about how "we'd do it better if we had the chance."
Arguing methodology over content when it comes to grand strategy is a loser-plain and simple. On that score Karl Rove is kicking James Carville's ass, leading me to believe that the only way the Dems will reclaim the Clintonesque ability to push a Reaganesque sense of forward-looking optimism will be to move beyond Kerry's badly managed campaign and go with the other Clinton in 2008.
This looks like a blog I'm going to have to check more often.
