<$BlogRSDUrl$>

11/12/2004

 

Huffington: Clinton's Boyz Cost Kerry


"Huffington, Puffington," a liberal friend of mine once said. I agree, of course.

Arianna Huffington has declared that the electoral defeat of JF Kerry can be attributed to the late addition of Team Clinton to his campaign.

She quotes Jimmy Carville:
“If we can’t win this damn election,” the advisor to the Kerry campaign said, “with a Democratic Party more unified than ever before, with us having raised as much money as the Republicans, with 55% of the country believing we’re heading in the wrong direction, with our candidate having won all three debates, and with our side being more passionate about the outcome than theirs — if we can’t win this one, then we can’t win shit! And we need to completely rethink the Democratic Party.”
Harsh words, James, but right and right. Kerry evidently wants to lead this rethinking process. (He's good at changing a single mind: his own.)

And Arianna argues:
[I]t was Shrum and the Clintonistas (including Greenberg, Carville and senior advisor Joe Lockhart) who dominated the campaign in the last two months and who were convinced that this election was going to be won on domestic issues, like jobs and healthcare, and not on national security.
She forgot McCurry and Begala.

Kerry was weak on national security, and the Clinton people were called in to stop the bleeding begun by the Swifties. They brought JF back into the race, so to speak, A Shrum campaign is about class envy, always, to Begala and Carville shouldn't be the focus of Arianna's wrath.

It wasn't Shrum, Carville, Greenberg, Lockhart, or Dan Rather who lost this campaign. The blame on the Dem side, I think, goes straight to Terence McAuliffe, who truncated the Dem nominating process in such a way as to force a nowhere candidate on the party.

Really, though, the Dems didn't lose the election. The President won it. (With a nod to Messrs. Shrum and Mehlman.)

5 comments

5 Comments:

Yeah, it's Clinton's fault. Never mind the fact that he was a two-term president. And what is this rubbish about the Democratic side being passionate about John Kerry. All I heard in the press, the liberal press even, was how unenthusiastic Kerry voters were about their candidate than Bush voters were.

By Blogger invadesoda, at November 12, 2004 at 7:55 PM  

I don't think the Dems can blame JF Kerry that they lost. If McAuliffe would have allowed for a regular nominating process, Kerry would never have won the nomination.

As it was, they were rushed through the process and stuck with a dud.

And as much as it goes against conventional wisdom, Bush's turnout was so great because so many people wanted to reelect him. Rove and Mehlman made sure everyone knew how important it was to get out and actively support the President at the ballot box, and that's what they did. The Dems, stuck with Kerry, didn't have a similar option.

By Blogger Mark Kilmer, at November 12, 2004 at 10:26 PM  

Thank you!
[url=http://vqdvxjma.com/ytpd/iwch.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://uqdwqmxd.com/bmfc/tezf.html]Cool site[/url]

By Anonymous Anonymous, at November 14, 2006 at 8:54 AM  

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

By Anonymous Anonymous, at November 14, 2006 at 8:54 AM  

Good design!
http://vqdvxjma.com/ytpd/iwch.html | http://dhveaeks.com/papq/hffa.html

By Anonymous Anonymous, at November 14, 2006 at 8:55 AM  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?