Here's what Kerry did after the election, and why!

Our leaders just need to look at their failure to take a stand against the Iraq war for proof. The public believes that most of them voted for the war because they feared they would be called names ("unpatriotic" or whatever). They are now paying a serious price for giving in to threats of "backlash" then.

There are reports that our leaders are allowing the same fear to deter them from taking up the fight for impeachment. ("We can't demand an impeachment inquiry. If we do they'll call us unpatriotic for attacking a president in a time of war").

If our leaders do not overcome this fear and act, they will be digging themselves into a hole they may never get out of.

When we find out the magnitude of the crimes committed by the Bush administration (and we will, sooner or later) do they really want to pay the political price for being accomplices in those crimes?

As President Clinton says, people will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." It's certainly no secret that of what legitimate support Bush gets, much of it is simply based on a, carefully crafted, "strong leader" perception.

Should the Democratic Party finally recognize that they have a duty to take up the fight for impeachment, even if it turns out to be a "charge of the light brigade," it would not be surprising to see them garner an additional 5-7% of the white male vote, simply for showing the fortitude that demographic respects.

Contrary to what many Democratic strategists believe, the perception of weakness has NOTHING to do with stance on national security. It is rooted in:

1. The reticence that centrists seem to have when it comes to accusation and punishment. (Something the right clearly revels in.) Instead of going after wrong-doers, Democratic leaders seek to "investigate" or "make sure it doesn't happen again" (and the Republicans chuckle, "Gee, for a minute there, I though they were actually going to do something.")
   
   


2. The tendency to refrain from fighting the good fights for "practical" or "strategic" reasons. Members of the Democratic Party may believe they are "picking fights wisely," but to observers, it appears they spend all their time predicting defeat and "saving their energy" for fights they can win. Outsiders looking in do not see "wise selection," they see cowardice. When the rare "winnable fight" does materialize, it is often for some incremental step or practical end that inspires no one.
   
   

Bottom line: You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. How can members of the Democratic Party expect Americans to believe they can stand up to terrorists, if they can't stand up to the man who terrorized Americans into war with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"?

Fighting on principle, win or lose, shows strength and conviction -- Strength and conviction are qualities that the Democratic Party desperately needs to demonstrate.

There is no fight more critical than exposing the crimes against our constitutional democracy that have been committed by the fascists in this administration. Every candidate who takes up the fight for impeachment challenges the perception of "weak Democrats" and by so doing gives the entire party a boost.

Many are attempting to invoke the electorate's response to Clinton's impeachment to support their claims that the electorate will have a similar negative response to an effort to impeach Bush. Such claims are absurd on there face.

More than 40% of the nation has opposed Bush from day one and the opposition is steadily growing. There is no conceivable scenario in which the support for impeaching Bush and Cheney would drop below 40%.

The 30% who steadfastly supported the impeachment of Clinton will oppose to the impeachment of Bush. Opposition to the impeachment of Bush and Cheney may never drop below 30%, but revelations in the course of investigation could drive that number down.

There is no evidence to suggest the 30% not yet accounted for would oppose impeachment, but evidence to the contrary can be found in polls. Even though leaders from both parties keeping are mum on impeachment, more than half the country believes Bush should be impeached if he knew his threat of mushroom clouds in 45 minutes was a lie.

In the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton, the negative reaction was rooted in the belief that the questions about President Clinton's sex life should not have been asked in the first place.

There are serious charges against Bush and Cheney, and serious questions that are unanswered. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the findings of an impeachment inquiry would lead the electorate to conclude that the charges should never have been investigated in the first place.

Since the beginning -- the theft of the 2000 election -- at least half of the electorate has been appalled and enraged by the horrors Bush has committed in our name.<[br />
The anger is spreading as more and more people are facing some hard, and alarming, facts about this administration. The trend is one way. The people who have opposed Bush all along are not turning around, and those who are turning against Bush now are unlikely to "unlearn" what they have learned.

But, with no leader giving voice to the anger, countless people are seething in silence. It is impossible to know the true numbers, but there is every indication that if our leaders stand up and give voice to the opposition, they would unleash the anger and see an unprecedented surge of support.