Dawkins writes:

So I assume you've been following the Kerry nomination delay story.

Here's the account from the Washington Post.

Obviously the Republicans are having a hissy fit / shitting their pants.

Any idea what the fuck Ken Mehlman is talking about when he says:

"Only John Kerry could be for a nominating convention but be against the nomination," said Ken Mehlman, campaign manager for Bush's reelection committee. "This is just the latest example of John Kerry's belief that the rules are for other people, not for him."

Okay, so the trope of a political candidate believing that "the rules are for other people, not for him" is tried and true. But I'm a pretty close follower of these things and I have never seen this smear applied to Kerry before. Am I wrong? Have the Republicans been using this one all along? No, right? Seriously, help me if I'm missing something.

So why the "this is just the latest example of..."? What are the previous examples? It's like Mehlman, the fatigued, despondent, delirious witness to the implosion of the Bush enterprise, is reciting any old political smear adage that comes to mind when asked to respond to Kerry. Or maybe, knowing he's going to lose, he just doesn't give a fuck anymore.

[Blicero adds: "...say anything to get elected...looks French...hates troops...loves terrorists...ah fuck it, whatever."]

Since we're on the subject, what the fuck does this mean: "Only John Kerry could be for a nominating convention but be against the nomination?" That doesn't even come close to describing this situation let alone to articulating a cogent, sensible, or even effective attack on Kerry's position.

"Against the nomination"? "For a nominating convention"?

What?

[Blicero adds: How about this: "the nomination" = troops/America; "a nominating convention" = terror/European appeasers. Thus: against nomination, for nominating convention. Makes perfect sense.]