|
gains in 2002 because they kept the message "positive"?
Yet, all I heard was "Kerry this" and "Kerry that", and, lest we forget, "TERROR!"
The DNC was positive, Obama's keynote address was extremely great for a relative newcomer, Kerry's speech built to an amazing climax (like a well-done orchestral piece, with the points hitting home like the cannons in the 1812 Overture), and Edwards had a great speech.
The RNC was mostly Kerry bashing, trying their best not to alienate the Vietnam Veterans while alienating the Vietnam Veterans, Zell Miller going off his meds far more than Al Gore "ever did", and the message pretty much was "If you vote for Kerry, the World Trade Center will cease to exist" (whoops, that happened under Bush, right?). And, after all of Rove's minions constantly attacked Kerry on Vietnam, it allowed the chosen one to rise up from the depths and take the pulpit and speak platitudes with enough self-serving cheers to give him enough time to practice each sentence in his head before opening his mouth.
If it were, as the repukes said before, a matter of Positive versus Negative, then their "positive" message sounds like "we're positive that Kerry will destroy the world".
|