A note to the candidates and their staff about my analysis

My criticism isn't meant to be mean spirited (although I admit that it may come across that way in sections). Rather, I'm just putting in writing an honest reaction to what I observe. I can tell you that almost all people who have read this find it very insightful and persuasive. It's gotten a fair amount of exposure too; over 10,000 page views so far. And what I'm saying here...this is just good "warm up practice" for what the Republicans are going to unleash on our nominee. So it's better to prepare now. I'm doing you a big service.

A candidate's team can choose to embrace critics like me, enlist me (or anyone else who was smart enough to figure it out before the debate), figure out how to fix the problems, and move forward. I've provided some specific suggestions for each candidate on my Comparing the Candidates Summary Chart 

Or they could try to attack me saying I have my facts wrong (that's cool, everyone makes mistakes and I'm fine correcting them if you tell me what they are) or that I just came to a bad conclusion. The problem with attacking my analysis here is that it is a losing strategy because I'm not the only one that sees this stuff. In fact, attacking me is silly. The stuff I wrote on my two-page teaser ended up being the headline at the New York Times and Washington Post after the second debate. The Post headline read: "In N.H., Democrats Focus on Iraq Clinton, Obama reject criticism from Edwards that they lack strong leadership to end war" which is precisely what I wrote.

Most people didn't notice the differences in the candidates that I did. But when you point it out, they notice and it does change their opinion. I've moved a lot of people by "one notch" with this analysis, e.g., if they were committed, they become undecided. If they were undecided, they move to Edwards. I was pleased to see that my analysis of the contrasting leadership styles was the signature issue of the second debate according to news stories in the top papers. So the arguments here are probably reasonably good.

The smartest strategy is actually to ask for the critic's advice in how to fix the problems observed and then seek out the critic as they move forward because enlisting the aid of a friendly critic who wants to help now is a lot better than having to face the Republican smear machine later. They don't have to pick me. If there is anyone with a better and more critical analysis out there, they should seek out that person because that is the best way to improve (let me know if you know of other insightful analyses of the candidates and I'll add them to the Links section above). My #1 objective is that we elect a Democrat who can get the job done with respect to global warming. Currently, only Edwards fits that bill in my opinion, but I'm willing to help any other candidate who thinks I might have some good points here and wants to improve. The stronger our candidates become, the more likely they will win in 2008.

Another smart way to use this information is to prepare your own candidate to point out the weaknesses of their opponents and give them a preview of how they might be attacked so that they can be prepared with comebacks. So this information is useful both offensively and defensively. You might want to show it to your candidate directly. I know at least one candidate has read all my stuff.

May the better candidate win and may you all improve in the process. That is my hope.