"Kerry was not bold enough to win"

[cjbuchanan]

So has everyone seen Arianna Huffington's latest article?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/huffington/2004/11/08/caution/index.html

-snip-

The reason it's so important to make this crystal clear -- even as Kerry's concession speech is still ringing in our ears -- is that to the victors go not only the spoils but the explanations. And the Republicans are framing their victory as the triumph of conservative moral values and the wedge cultural issues they exploited throughout the campaign.

But it wasn't gay marriage that did the Democrats in; it was the fatal decision to make the pursuit of undecided voters the overarching strategy of the Kerry campaign.

This meant that at every turn the campaign chose caution over boldness so as not to offend the undecideds who, as a group, long to be soothed and reassured rather than challenged and inspired.

The fixation on undecided voters turned a campaign that should have been about big ideas, big decisions and the very, very big differences between the worldviews of John Kerry and George Bush -- both on national security and domestic priorities -- into a narrow trench war fought over ludicrous nonissues like whether Kerry had bled enough to warrant a Purple Heart.

This timid, spineless, walking-on-eggshells strategy -- with no central theme or moral vision -- played right into the hands of the Bush-Cheney team's portrayal of Kerry as an unprincipled, equivocating flip-flopper who, in a time of war and national unease, stood for nothing other than his desire to become president.

-snip-

more at: http://www.salon.com/opinion/huffington/2004/11/08/caution/index.html


What do you think?

[TruthOutDawg]

1. Kerry DID win!

And I was so disappointed in Arianna when I saw this.

[w13rd0]

2. Well...

...she feels he didn't "take her advice", which was to "be bold" or have a "bold message".

[cjbuchanan]

3. Welcome to DU!

Hope you are having fun.
:beer:

[GodHelpUsAll2]

4. I think

she hit the nail right on the head.

[pinkpops]

5. I think he did a great job - remember who the other

candidates were. I was not an early Kerry supporter, but I accepted him and thought he did as well as any of them could have. The trick was to keep everyone together. In concentrating on the electoral vote (which he might have won absent fraud), he came up short in the popular vote, but not by much :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2655668

[GodHelpUsAll2]

7. Why is that

always the central reply. "remember who the other side was". Does that mean we can NEVER win again because of "who the other side is". These are excuses for a loss. When will we stop making excuses and accept responsibility? Isn't that just what we crow for the other side to do, accept responsibility and stop making excuses?

[pinkpops]

9. I was talking about the primaries

You had Dean, Edwards, Sharpton, Clark, Lieberman, Gebhardt, Kucinich.
Who could have done better than Kerry?

[cjbuchanan]

10. We will never know

One of them could have done something different and caused a win or it could have caused a huge defeat.

It is impossible to say what would have happened.

[gristy]

6. So many brilliant pundits...

I gotta wear shades. If the repukes don't steal Ohio, Kerry wins, and how does this change Huffington's analysis? Obviously, it should not. She should write the exact same things about Kerry's shallow and weak campaign. :puke:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. What day of the week is it?

Which side is Arianna on today?

I am so sick of this bitch. Talk about exploitative and manipulative, and, might I add, power-hungry and desperate for attention?

Shouldn't she be getting ready to become Jim McGreevey's next wife?

[kerrygoddess]

11. if she's so brilliant

Why didn't she beat Arhnold in CA?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

12. Well that same sentence

could be used substituing Kerry's name. If he's so brilliant, why couldn't he beat Bush?