ANATOMY OF A CRUSHING POLITICAL DEFEAT - column

[BobDj]

What Arianna Huffington is huffing about in her latest column is fine in theory, but impossible in practice. How can a candidate use a "bolder, more passionate language" if he is not bold and passionate? (Kerry).

The Dems lost the election, and therefore any distinction from the Republicans, when they defeated Howard Dean (see Election 2004: Patriotic Dissent - http://www.truthinmedia.org/truthinmedia/Bulletins2004/Patriotic_Dissent.html ). That's all there is to it. No amount of post-electoral huffing and puffing will change that fact. Not even if your name is Huffington. ;)

Regards,

Bob Dj.

[smog]

Arianna is right on target. In May I submitted the following comment to Kerry's web site. I received no response. (When I posted to Dean's web site, I would receive a response in 2 or 3 days, not necessarily accepting my views. ) It was obvious Kerry was conducting a top-down campaign that did not need grass roots input.

""John Kerry Internet Town Meeting [Powered by Invision Power Board]
http://fomm.johnkerry.comlindex.php?act=Print&client={
Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
John Kerry Internet Town Meeting> Campaign Activity Suggestions> Kerry Salon Interview

Posted by: smog May 31 2004,04:36 PM
John Kerry is not activating his Democratic base and turning off many
independents with his soft stance on Iraq. With Bush favorability ratings dropping in the polls, Kerry should be surging ahead. That he is not is very disturbing and a reflection of poor campaign strategy. The below paragraph is an example of many responses from good Arizona Democrats from Kerry's Salon interview. It is typical:

"Many thanks. This sort of thing about Kerry bothers me a great deal which simply adds another albatross to his earlier myopic vote to invade Iraq. It makes me wonder whether Kerry really has a solid grasp of the drastic need for our government to embrace innovative thinking on foreign policy matters. I notice in the Times that his principal advisors such as Berg and Holbrooke seem to mirror Clinton's views of what should be done in this rarified field - times are changing and I simply wonder if they, as well as Kerry, are still in the
world's backwaters as compared with France and Germany which seem to have taken a
much more forward look. Italy, of course, remains hopelessly mired in the swamps of antiquity. Anyway, take care. John"

Let us not throw this election to Bush with weak campaign strategy. Biting the bullet may not be as risky as it seems. Smog.""

Let us stop this crap about Kerry losing because of moral values and the DLC pundits recommending that the party move more to the right to attract southern voters. Kerry lost because of poor campaign strategy. Only his highly paid consultants profited. Times have changed. The days of Bill Clinton and the DLC are over. Smog.

[JudithC]

While I agree that Kerry's campaign was mishandled in many ways, I don't think his defeat can be put solely on not stressing the war instead of the economy. I believe that if Kerry could have connected with all the workers nation-wide who have lost their jobs, make minimum wage, or are suffering a host of other economic problems, it would have made a difference. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is no longer interested in "have nots," therefore, there was no strong message to this group. He was, of course, much better than Bush on these issues, but the message from Democrats is still weak. This leaves much of the country dubious about what the Democrats would actually do about the economy as it concerns them. It should be remembered that in 1992, Clinton was elected on a platform that was far more populist than what he actually did during his Presidency, i.e., his endorsement of "welfare reform," support of NAFTA as it stands, backing down on health care reform, etc. Until the Democrats recognize that if they cannot aggressively and boldly offer an alternatvive to the re-distribution of wealth from the bottom and middle to the top, they will lose. In this case, it wasn't an "either/or" situation. Kerry could have taken both a different position on the war and security, and addressed the real economic needs of those in, or slipping into, poverty.

[a-Citisen]

Kerry was on target with a view on economic USA matters. The only thing from which he was unable to disentangle his efforts was the ME military matter. He should have redefined what is a terrorist in order to refit that ME military matter within the objective of the USA idealism of self government. The BA2 with -w- in tow, and its so-called war-on-terrorism is a farce. The ruined USA economy is real. Jobs are lost we-the-people cannot "worK" for matters important to each of us. The dollar has no basis of value, market, Wall street and Bank derivatives are not indicators of a strong dollar. Only a physical basis marks and measures the dollar's value. Work within the USA is what builds the dollar value, not account figure movement.

But, before an individual mind can determine a farce from the real, an educated mind is required.