Turning to the question of boldness on the domestic front, the problem here is less that Kerry doesn't have any bold proposals, than that he hasn't been able to figure out a compelling way to highlight them. That's a shame because, as Stanley and Anna Greenberg point out in their interesting report "Toward a Bold Politics":

...the Kerry proposals – on health care and energy – that are his two boldest... win the most voter support (80 percent, including over half of the electorate that strongly supports them). To address the health care crisis, Kerry offers a broad government initiative to cover all children, qualify all Americans to purchase insurance in the federal-employee pool, provide tax credits and close drug company loopholes to reduce costs. On energy, Kerry promises a Manhattan project to achieve energy independence in 10 years, promote renewables and fuel efficiency.

Another area where Kerry has some good ideas is education. As Michael Winerip pointed out recently in an admirably crisp article in The New York Times:

The secret to quality public education has never been a big mystery. You need good teachers and you need small enough classes so those teachers can do their work. Period.

In terms of the availability of good teachers, the root of the problem is widely noted. As Matthew Miller put it in a recent column, "Think Bigger on Teachers":

....up through the mid-1970s, the quality of the teacher corps was subsidized by discrimination. Women and minorities didn't have as many opportunities outside the classroom. An enormous talent pool came into the schools, talent that is now nearing retirement. These teachers' younger counterparts aren't choosing teaching; they're becoming doctors and lawyers and businesspeople instead.

And, given the lower pay, poorer working conditions and more difficult students in high-poverty schools, the lower quality part of this lower quality teaching corps winds up in those schools, teaching the very kids who need great teachers the most.

Kerry's proposal to deal with this problem is called a "New Bargain for America's Children and Teachers". Here's the basic idea from his website:

...[Kerry's] “New Bargain for America's Children and Teachers” will recruit or retain 500,000 teachers over the next 4 years . Working together with parents, principals, and communities across America, John Kerry will offer teachers and children a new bargain. The new bargain will offer teachers more—providing better pay and preparation—and will ask for more in return—requiring high standards and rewarding results for our children.

Kerry's plan will recruit quality teachers for high-need schools and for subject areas like math and science by offering pay hikes of at least $5,000. He will also establish a new teacher corps for recent college graduates.

Great idea! Problem is, as Miller points out:

Kerry's new plan offers exactly the right framework. Yet the budget he puts behind it, roughly $3 billion a year, isn't nearly enough to make the difference he seeks.

In a new book I estimate it would cost $30 billion a year (not $3 billion) to raise starting salaries for high-poverty teachers from roughly $40,000 to $60,000 - and to make it possible for the best performers to eventually earn as much as $150,000. This new trajectory would revolutionize the way the career is viewed by college students choosing a career.

Miller concludes that:

A bolder call (via Kerry's new bargain) to have the nation make the best teachers of poor children millionaires over their careers could make the press and public see there's a difference on schools that matters. With the stakes so high, in other words, Kerry may want to think bigger - so that his teacher plan is more effective as policy and more potent as politics.

Souds good to me, though, as Matthew Yglesias pointed out in his post on Miller's column, the education issue ranks below Iraq, economy/jobs and health care in terms of salience. Still, it's interesting to note that, according to the Greenbergs, a "bold" education proposal polls better than Kerry's actual education proposal in the areas of preschool, class size and college access. Perhaps the same thing would be true in the teachers area.

Clearly, the devil is in the details on all this. Kerry does have fiscal and political constraints on what he can advocate (though, as many have noted, Clinton initially got elected on a synthesis of fiscal responsibility and "putting people first" not fiscal responsibility alone). And simply advocating that Kerry "Go Big", as MoveOn, in conjunction with Arianna Huffington and Joe Trippi, has suggested in a recent petition, understates the challenges Kerry has in framing "bold" proposals so they reach and inspire swing voters.

But I do think the raw materials are already out there for a bold Kerry domestic agenda that could indeed be compelling for voters. So far, I don't believe he's succeeded in communicating that agenda to voters. He's got plenty of time but, in the end, voters will want to know what the Kerry campaign is about. An overly-cautious, let-Bush-lose approach will not answer that fundamental voter question.