According to Arianna Huffington this is why Kerry LOST.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

I'm pasting the full opinion because I'm getting the whole message for www.democracyforamerica.com
_____________________________________________________________________
Anatomy of a Crushing Political Defeat
By Arianna Huffington

This election was not stolen. It was lost by the Kerry campaign.

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 non-issues 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.

The Republicans spent a hundred million dollars selling this image of Kerry to the public. But the public would not have bought it if the Kerry campaign had run a bold, visionary race that at every moment and every corner contradicted the caricature.

Kerry's advisors were so obsessed with not upsetting America's fence-sitting voters they ended up driving the Kerry bandwagon straight over the edge of the Grand Canyon, where the candidate proclaimed that even if he knew then what we all know now—that there were no WMD in Iraq—he still would have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

This equivocation was not an accidental slip. It was the result of a strategic decision—once again geared to undecided voters—not to take a decisive, contrary position on Iraq. In doing so, the Kerry camp failed to recognize that this election was a referendum on the president's leadership on the war on terror. (Jamie Rubin, who had been hired by the campaign as a foreign-policy advisor, went so far as to tell the Washington Post that Kerry, too, would likely have invaded Iraq.)

It was only after the polls started going south for Kerry, with the president opening a double-digit lead according to some surveys, that his campaign began to rethink this disastrous approach. The conventional wisdom had it that it was the Swift Boat attacks that were responsible for Kerry's late-summer drop in the polls but, in fact, it was the vacuum left by the lack of a powerful opposing narrative to the president's message on the war on terror—and whether Iraq was central to it—that allowed the attacks on Kerry's leadership and war record to take root.

We got a hint of what might have been when Kerry temporarily put aside the obsession with undecideds and gave a bold, unequivocal speech at New York University on Sept. 20 eviscerating the president's position on Iraq. This speech set the scene for Kerry's triumph in the first debate.

Once Kerry belatedly began taking on the president on the war on terror and the war on Iraq—"wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"—he started to prevail on what the president considered his unassailable turf.

You would have thought that keeping up this line of attack day in and day out would have clearly emerged as the winning strategy—especially since the morning papers and the nightly news were filled with stories on the tragic events in Iraq, the CIA's no al-Qaida/Saddam link report, and the Duelfer no-WMD report.

Instead, those in charge of the Kerry campaign ignored this giant, blood-red elephant standing in the middle of the room and allowed themselves to be mesmerized by polling and focus group data that convinced them that domestic issues like jobs and health care were the way to win.

The Clintonistas who were having a greater and greater sway over the campaign—including Joe Lockhart, James Carville and the former president himself—were convinced it was "the economy, stupid" all over again, which dovetailed perfectly with the beliefs of chief strategist Bob Shrum and campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill.

But what worked for Clinton in the '90s completely failed Kerry in 2004, at a time of war, fear and anxiety about more terrorist attacks. And even when it came to domestic issues, the message was tailored to the undecideds.

Bolder, more passionate language that Kerry had used during the primary—like calling companies hiding their profits in tax shelters "the Benedict Arnolds of corporate America"—was dropped for fear of scaring off undecideds and Wall Street. Or was it Wall Street undecideds? ("This was very unfortunate language," Roger Altman, Clinton's Deputy Treasury Secretary told me during the campaign. "We've buried it." And indeed, the phrase was quickly and quietly deleted from the Kerry Web site.)

Sure, Kerry spoke about Iraq until the end (how could he not?), but the majority of the speeches, press releases and ads coming out of the campaign, including Kerry's radio address to the nation 10 days before the election, were on domestic issues.

The fact that Kerry lost in Ohio, which had seen 232,000 jobs evaporate and 114,000 people lose their health insurance during the Bush years, shows how wrong was the polling data the campaign based its decisions on.

With Iraq burning, WMD missing, jobs at Herbert Hoover-levels, flu shots nowhere to be found, gas prices through the roof, and Osama bin Laden back on the scene looking tanned, rested, and ready to rumble, this should have been a can't-lose election for the Democrats. Especially since they were more unified than ever before, had raised as much money as the Republicans, and were appealing to a country where 55 percent of voters believed we were headed in the wrong direction.

But lose it they did.

So the question inevitably becomes: What now?

Already there are those in the party convinced that, in the interest of expediency, Democrats need to put forth more "centrist" candidates—i.e. Republican-lite candidates—who can make inroads in the all-red middle of the country.

I'm sorry to pour salt on raw wounds, but isn't that what Tom Daschle did? He even ran ads showing himself hugging the president! But South Dakotans refused to embrace this lily-livered tactic. Because, ultimately, copycat candidates fail in the way "me-too" brands do.

Unless the Democratic Party wants to become a permanent minority party, there is no alternative but to return to the idealism, boldness and generosity of spirit that marked the presidencies of FDR and JFK and the short-lived presidential campaign of Bobby Kennedy.

Otherwise, the Republicans will continue their winning ways, convincing tens of millions of hard working Americans to vote for them even as they cut their services and send their children off to die in an unjust war.

Democrats have a winning message. They just have to trust it enough to deliver it. This time they clearly didn't.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

1. Ah, bullshit.

[Sara Beverley]

26. She makes some good points but it was the phony issue of gay marriage

Out of public view, the Rovians, bombarded the evangelicals with visits to churches, mailings and quiet almost secret training sessions with over a million evangleical churches across the country,
Rove is smart, give it to him. It took the calculated risk of pushing GW to go for a constitutional amendment (that even Bush doesn't want to see happen) to ban gay marriage. It was a genius move to get the hysterical evangelical out in force to vote for the ballot issue of gay marriage. These folks came out in the red states that were swing states to vote this single issue and while they were there, they voted for Bush. The Dems also missed the subltle message that inspired many black evangelicals to vote for GW also. The suble, almost incidental message sent to black church-goers who are with the Dems on almost everything else is that such a moral issue would not mean that much to them. As many have said, the Dems just take the black vote for granted and never seem to address the family and moral issues that black families for generations have honored and respected. The hardest anti-gay folks are in black families. Oh, don't get me wrong, they love and their gay family members but they think they are derranged and going straigt to hell (that's what my co-worker tells me.) They were anti-gay long before the white evangelicals brain-washed by Pat and Jerry thought it was "Christian" to be so. All the black families wanted to do was keep their gay family members in the closet and work on their soul salvation out of sight. Comes along the white evangelicals who embrace these blacks who share nothing else with them save the "love of God" and wham!!! They are included in and made to feel a viable part of a significant "Christian movement." It was a magnificant move on the part of Rove to see and understand that this one single issue could be stated simply, broadly, and convincinly and he pushed Bush out in front with the message. And this trumped anything that really mattered and really affected the lives of the evangels. I mean, come on, how many "married gays" does any evangelical even know or run into compared to the number of poor people they pass by on their city streets and rural roads each day? It was a strok of genious (and meaness) that the master Rove set in motion. Check the numbers and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

[saracat]

2. Amen Arianna

[blurp]

51. Article for Reason Online says suggests Dean better for party

WARNING! Has a libertarian slant, but makes a good point.

http://www.reason.com/cavanaugh/110304.shtml

Excerpt:

A Dean candidacy would have forced the question about Iraq: Was the war a mistake, and if so how do we get out of it? He certainly would have inspired the Democratic base in ways Kerry's simply-not-Bush appeal never did. He might even have brought out the Godot-like "youth vote" we kept hearing about this fall. But the energy of a Dean campaign would not have come about because the candidate was even more firmly wedded than Kerry to failed leftist ideas (though he was) but because, as evidenced by his notorious Confederate flag comment, Dean was clearly willing to innovate.

Such a vigorous campaign would have been good for America. More important, from Terry McAuliffe's view, it would have been good for the Democratic Party.

Let's stipulate that the DNC's cooler heads were right, and a Bush-Dean race would have ended in a slaughter of Johnson-Goldwater proportions. Would that have been as bad as what actually happened? Rick Perlstein's 2001 study Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, helped to reconceptualize the 1964 election not as conservatism's Waterloo but as its Bunker Hill, the defeat that purified and energized the movement."

And

"I don't claim to know what kind of party would emerge from a period in the wilderness, though I know what I'd wish for. At the moment, sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll—not to mention free speech, privacy, and the right to a speedy trial—have no national champion in either major party. One obvious place for the Democrats to start finding a voice again might be in a renewed commitment to civil liberties. But the issue isn't whether the DNC decides to upgrade the New Deal for the digital age, or reinvents itself entirely as the party of small government, or stands up for the Common Man like Barton Fink, or returns to its roots as the party of McClellan. It isn't that there's no answer; it's that Harry Reid and the in denial Nancy Pelosi are not the sort of people to start asking the question. "

[blurp]

52. WARNING: The above has a libertarian slant, but makes some good points.

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. IT was the media stupid

they made a coke-head draft dodger tough on terrorism
and a war hero turned lifelong leader a flip-flopper

[lancdem]

4. She makes some good points

[Avalux]

5. SInce when did she become and authority?

Don't think much of Arianna and never will.

[Haviland_42]

10. Me either (n/t)

[bacchant]

28. She's bright and she's right

Kerry's position on the war always felt like pandering to me. Also, every time I watched interviews with undecideds I thought; these people are a bunch of wishy-washy fools who don't even know their own minds. Why bother?

[President Jesus]

6. What does Arianna know about winning?

Kerry ran the campaign WE wanted him to, and increased the Democratic base.

The GOP ran a wartime incumbent and still needed a population fighting a culture war and guided by Jesus in order to edge out Kerry. How many more times are they going to be able to rely on that before it bites them in the ass?

[glitch]

7. Usually I agree with Arianna but not this time - right now it's opinion vs

opinion, which is why an investigation is imperative. I sure believed Kerry would be up for this too. I hope I wasn't wrong.

[Droopy]

8. I think social conservatism had more to do with the loss

Bush is a failure on everything that matters as Huffington clearly pointed out. But so many people see Bush as just a good guy and a good Christian that they didn't take the time to read up on the issues. If they would have, Kerry would have won in a landslide.

[goodhue]

9. Arianna is correct

IMHO

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18029

[The Magistrate]

11. Ms. Huffington Is Largely Correct

The fence-sitting voters are attracted by passion, not calculation; they will go for the person and party that expresses itself most forcefully and clearly. Claims that these people are offended by various things, though popular with the punditry, are simply false: everyone said they were tired of and offended by the Simpson trial, but somehow everyone knew the case in detail. People say a lot of things; it is their actions that must be watched.

Democratic strategists need to understand better than they seem to do the degree to which modern campaigns are exercises in marketing. It is necessary to decide, in the campaign's earliest stages, several short phrases that you want the people at large to be thinking of whenever they think of the opposing candidate. All elements of the campaign from the lowest surrogate to the candidate personally, must be focused on getting these phrases out and imprinting them on the popular mind. Until this element is grasped and acted on, there will remain an air of muskets versus breech-loaders about these affairs. When one commences a war at a disadvantage in technique or equipment, the only way it can be won is to learn what the enemy does, and do it better by half before the end.

"Americans looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent said: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

[bemildred]

19. Yes, she is.

But I am more cynical, I think Mr. Kerry did what he was supposed to.
I remember thinking when he "took the lead" from Mr. Dean that he
would most likely lose rather than rock the boat, that was why he was
"selected". He is merely the last in a long line of these fellows
brought in to eliminate independent and third party threats. That is
why Clinton drove them nuts.

Still, it's hard not to get your hopes up in the heat of a campaign.
But OTOH it is comforting to know the same people are running the
country today as yesterday, and the show will go on.

How do you feel about the allegations of "manipulation"? I find this
somewhat more blatant than usual, but then it's getting harder to
put lipstick on the pig.

[The Magistrate]

22. Well, My Friend

You may have reached that dizzying apex of cynicism that is higher even than mine. It does not seem reasonable to me to suppose that degree of collusion. The parties are, it seems to me, sincere in their desire to beat one another, and the perquisites of victory for the functionaries of each are sufficiently better than the straitened conditions of defeat to suggest a sound motive for giving the best fight, according to the lights of each, either can mount. From many points of view, the differences may seem small, and even the outcome of no great moment within the confines of a duopoly that agrees on many basic points, but the differences, and the consequences flowing from which pole of the structure holds office, are real enough.

There will likely not emerge any allegations the elections were stolen with a sufficient heft of evidence behind them to be either actionable, or of much use as a political line. My own verdict is that the thing was more "cooked" than "stolen," and that nothing was done that could not have been rendered null by a sufficient turn-out of our own voters. There was certainly some suppression of registration, that was sharp practice indeed but within the letter of the law, and it seems to me that such measures as insufficient numbers of polling stations in some areas, and an insufficiency of equipment at them, again things that are sharp practice but not outright illegalities, had some deletorious effect. But as an old Chicagoan, it is hard to wax too wroth over such tricks as that. It seems to me that the other side did a better job on many levels of getting its adherents to the polls. Sometimes, you just get beat in these things....

"Wouldn't it be strange if Heaven was just like the Eleventh Ward, and you had to know just who was who to receive your just reward?"

"Americans looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent said: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

[bemildred]

25. Thank you.

I agree with more cooked than stolen, although one could say that
"stolen" is more or less equivalent to "successfully cooked". But
being from Chicago, I expect you know the score about US politics.
The dead not only walk, they get to vote in a pinch.

The parties are composed of large numbers of people, most of whom are
sincere and (more or less) honest. But they are run by only a few,
and they are not sincere or honest at all, and like almost all who
hold power, they like it, and do not plan to give it up without a
fight.

The extent to which the US political drama is a charade may be debated,
but it seems clear enough that it is "managed" to keep the discussion
well away from anything that might upset the status quo, and that
the status quo is not in the best interests of the public at large.
Hence one may infer that our leaders do not "serve" us, and that
most likely then they serve themselves. Hence my cynicism.

[The Magistrate]

27. Always A Pleasure, My Friend

To me, stolen in this context refers to actual alteration of the results, as or after the votes themselves are cast, a thing always involving unambiguous illegality. It is a seperate thing from the preparation of the battlefield by letter of the law in opposition to its spirit, by gerrymander, and deniable "miscalculation" of requirements in particular localities. This is just one more area where the enemy has learned to play the game better than we who invented it, and doubtlless in large part from the influx to the Republicans of a number of Southern Democrats during the past several decades; they were easily the match of our metropolitan bosses up here at the art.

The question of management of the debate is a vexed one, on which we will probably continue to have some real disagreement. Electoral politics is the business of building group identities, and making these as large as possible, since the largest such will produce the greatest number of votes. This acts to reduce the range of debate quite independently of anyone's intent, in my view, though of course this imperative of the thing may be useful and desireable to some. Where there is broad agreement on many basic questions, as there is among the people of our country, for well or ill, attempts to form large groups must remain within the broadest consensus shared.

We are in agreement that the status quo in our country does not benefit the great mass of the people, or at least does not benefit them as much as it could and should. But electoral politics will never bring about any great repudiation of a social and cultural order. It is not a system designed or intended to do that, and change in such degree always proceeds from extra-electoral processes. Things must reach a sharp, and generally disasterous pitch, before the mass of the people will alter their views to the point that an electoral sytem can reflect that change, and see it become a policy of government.

"Just because they're dead don't mean they stopped being Democrats."

"Americans looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent siad: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

[bemildred]

35. Eh, a vexed question indeed.

I was reading a bit of T. Jefferson today while pursuing another
issue, and his comments on the feasibility of democracy were rather
good, and not far from what you say.

And I do agree that things are not sufficiently amiss for change to
occur, but I thought so before the election. One of my hopes in the
"Selection 2000" result was that the prospective misgovernance would
lead to greater political awareness and involvement. So that much has
come to pass. Reminds me of forty years ago, a bit.

It seems likely that one reason for the stability of the American
status quo since the Civil War is precisely the richness of the nation
and the uncrowdedness of it all.

Perhaps in another two years, or four, things will be more propitious.
Prediction is a mugs game, when it gets down to specific dates.

[The Magistrate]

39. Mr. Lincoln, Too, My Friend, Is Most Apt On This Question

A complete collection of his speeches and writings is one of my greatest consolations, and instructions, on political matters.

One other element quite applicable to Chicago politics, may also come into play. One party rule tends to fray the ruling party: in our system, both major parties really are coalitions, that in a Parliamentary system such as Germany's or Israel's, would be composed of several joined parties. Nothing is more deletorious to the stability of a coalition than the vanquishing of its enemy, since that is generally the only real glue holding the structure together. Within a single party that is actually a coalition, the absence of a powerful opponent tends to seperate the group into its constituent factions, which recreate among themselves a dual, or even multi-party system. There were real factions in the old Soviet Politburo, and there are decisive factions with the Chicago Democratic Party. In these divisions, a compact and united group still outside the coalition as it frays, acting with ruthless tactical acumen, could find great grounds for fruitful activity.

Certainly if we are correct in our assesment of the current administration, its policies and actions will lead to serious crisis, verging on calamity, if not actually rising to that genuine article. Concerning their fiscal policy, Stein's Law, that things that cannot continue, don't, would seem to apply. A collapse of the dollar seems to me a very likely thing over the next few years, and through its impact on interest rates would produce something reminiscent of the late seventies, if not the thirties of yore. The imperial adventure in Iraq similarly ought to produce no good news, but only an increasng spiral of bloody brutality, in which even the worst excesses will prove indubitably futile. To my view it is not often that the line "It must get worse to get better" is a useful one, but it is one that sometimes is forced by events, and this may prove such an instance. Like violence, that line is very seldom useful, but on occassions when it really is, nothing else can serve the turn....

Americans looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent said: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

[bemildred]

42. Well, yes. It's the coalition politics that drives things.

I have seen it theorized elsewhere that the Democratic party, around
1900 or so, was such a coalition of diverse - even contradictory -
interests, such that to rule it had to do nothing, and also to have
a suitable outside enemy, i.e. the Republicans. And while the
elements of the coalition have changed over time, the contradictions
and the need for an enemy remain. So in a sense the parties need
each other, as the US of the Cold War needed the Soviets and
regretted their loss. And the political system has been arranged, as
much as possible, to maintain that dynamic, that situation, because
real change would sweep them both away, and one could not long stand
without the other.

I think you are right in assessing the current prospects, but given
the folks in charge and the weakened state of the nation I expect it
will be worse than the 1970s this time around.

Edit: I might add, that this need to do nothing is what lies behind
the American political system's fondness for "deadlock", and of course
that means that the Republicans are in trouble, having no stops on
their sway, hence we should expect a access of strength and will
among the Democrats. Stay tuned.

[The Magistrate]

48. Interesting Observations, Sir

The Democrats remained such an unwieldy coalition well into the New Deal era: the urban bosses, with their power based on immigrant citizenry, and the southern populists and segregationists, basing their appeal on nativism and white pride, had very little in common, and many points of active hostility. The Republican Party was a similarly unwieldy coalition, of exploitative bosses, reformist progressives, and patrician blue-bloods with traditional outlooks of noblesse oblige and contempt for new money, with its mass voting strength sustained by memories of the Civil War.

The modern parties took form in the Civil Rights and Viet Nam periods, and represent a rearranging of many old and familiar elements. Goldwater's campaign transfered large numbers of progressive and patrician Republicans into the Democratic Party, and transferred large numbers of Southern segregationists and populists in the Republican Party. The Viet Nam period broke the allegiance of the patriotic working class with the Democratic Party, and ignited the partisans of traditional values, that ghastly amalgam of obscurantist puritanism, relexive racism, and nationalist religiousity, and turned these elements decisively towards the Republican Party. Over these new recruits was left the chief remaining old Republican element, the exploitative bosses and their "Free Market" fundamentalism. On the Democratic side, the loss of working class elements has weakened but not destroyed the old urban machines, while the identification with Civil Rights has decisively shifted all elements that feel in any way discriminated against towards the Democratic Party, and the coalescing of traditionalists with the Republican Party has necessarily resulted in allocating to the Democrats all elements that value, or see the least need for, change in the status quo.

These are the patchworks we have to work with today. The greatest tension for the Democrats remains the bristling relation between those who value novelty, and those who feel discriminated against, with the remaining working class elements, who differ from their fellows who have succumbed to the siren call of the traditionalists only by a somewhat greater sense of the importance of their own material self-interest, and a greater sense of justice in assessing human affairs. The tensions in the Republican coalition are more basic. The divide between "free-marketeers" and traditionalists really is too huge for bridging, and that is an alliance as odd Col. Sanders and chickens, as the former is in fact the chief engine of destruction of all the latter hold dear. Similarly, the divide between exploitative bosses and any working class elements really is too huge for bridging, and is an alliance as odd as the previous one.

The element of hope in this is that both the working class and traditionalist elements are yoked to put into place the policies desired by the "free-marketeer" bosses for their own benefit, and these policies cannot in the least degree contribute either to working class well-being or to the preservation of traditionalist mores. Actually putting these policies into being, as seems to be impending, must introduce a tremendous strain into the thing. It is hard to imagine the structure can long sustain it, however great the distraction by foreign adventures. Perhaps the most promising line as the strain increases is to lay the greatest emphasis on isolating the "free-marketeer" element from the rest, stressing the selfishness of its actions in relation to those it depends on for its mass strength. Both of the elements that lend this mass strength do so from feelings of unselfishness as a virtue, and are aware of putting other things they feel of greater value above their merely material interests. They may not react well to the realization those they empower by doing so are selfish and grasping to the core.

One further note, my friend. A policy of doing nothing is, on the one hand, often a most sound and wise one: “Don’t just do something, stand there!” is often the soundest possible advice. A policy of doing nothing is, on the other hand, evidence for a basic consensus that nothing much is wrong, and so nothing much needs doing. Doing nothing is not sustainable as a policy where there is a widespread sentiment that things are going wrong, and much needs to be done. Then there will be a widespread demand for action, and even misguided action will be seen by many as preferable to doing nothing at all.

"Fire must be concentrated on one joint of the enemy's forces, and once this is broken, the equilibrium is broken, and the rest is nothing."

"Americans looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent said: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

[bemildred]

50. I see you are a student of these matters.

And a deeper one than I. You know I am no opponent on principle of
doing nothing, and in fact the parties do do something. But the point
is clear enough, anything one does will piss off someone, possibly
someone that one depends on. It is a difficult balancing act, but
it has been carried off for quite a long while now, so it is reasonable
to infer it is not left to chance.

I don't really feel that I have sorted out the motives and roles of the
various persons who enter and leave the public stage, for instance Mr.
Kerry. But is clear enough if one watches Mr. Bush and the decadent
clowns that surround him, or watches Mr. Gore presiding over the
Senate session where the black caucus attempted to force an examination
of what happened in Florida, and he gaveling them down for the absence of
one senator to support it, and yet not to come to the conclusion that
there is collusion between the parties, that Mr. Gore was content to
lose, that that was most likely his role, that the show is fake and
the outcome pre-determined, that the parties are not in fact enemies
but associates in the presentation of a shared drama, that the public
conduct of politics is theatre, and no more.

[The Magistrate]

53. It Is One Of My Major Interests, My Friend

Israel v. Palestine really is something of a sideline....

That there is a degree of collusion is certainly true, but it seems to me there is much less of it today than formerly. Where persons expect to have their own hands on the machinery soon enough, they will have a certain reluctance to damage it, and just as it is difficult to damage a government without damaging the country it rules, it is difficult to damage a man in office without doing some damage to the office and its perquisites. Any democratic system is based on a couple of tacit pacts among all participants in it, namely, to agree to accept a loss that is unargueable, and to refrain from any practice so sharp you would fear its being used against you. Both of these, it seems to me, have been much eroded lately, and the Republican machine is the leading offender. It constitutes a real danger to our democracy, and they would not dare act in this way except that they feel certain of continual victory. But confidence in their tactical instrument, combined perhaps with hubris, is sufficient to explain this, without any need for the theory of collusion to present a puppet show to the populace.

The matter you refer to with Mr. Gore is an illustration. You will recall that the Senate soon to be seated was an oddity, with fifty from each party, so that there was no true majority, save that Cheney would be able to break ties. In light of this, there were some negociated accommodations arranged between the Senate leaderships of each party, modifying somewhat the usual majority v. minority arrangements. Certainly one of the elements of this bargaining was that no countenance be given to the House attempts you mentioned by members of the out-going Senate. The bargain may well be viewed as a poor one, but Mr. Gore stuck to it, while the Republican leadership rather chisled once the new session began. Mr. Gore probably ought to have expected that, but a gentleman is often at a certain disadvantage in dealing with rogues. That indeed, is one of our problems....

[bemildred]

56. Can't say I disagree.

We don't live in a police state. I am not in fear as I write this.
Barak Obama just got elected to the Senate. DU is still here, and
many places like it. The power of the state to enforce it's will
remains limited. The national government is still at some pains to
obtain the consent of the governed. Hunter S. Thompson still runs
free and says horrible things about the lot of them, and many others.

Nixon was not thrown out for his policies, but for violating the
silent accord that you point out. And yet how does one explain the
impeachment of Mr. Clinton? As you say, the cooperative support
of the parties for their mutual rule seems to be "under stress".
And yet that threatens the cohesion of both parties.

And something is terribly wrong with what just happened, with what
happened in 2000, with the handling of 9/11, etc. We are badly
governed and there is no true opposition that citizens that object
may turn to. An intelligent person cannot watch Mr. Bush and the
clowns that surround him and think they are anything but buffoons.

There are amazing things that are left unexplained and that our
attention is directed away from. Mr. Gore's performance in 2000 is
only one of many. And that thread of collusive misgovernance can
be traced far back into our national history.

[The Magistrate]

60. The Impeachment Of President Clinton, Sir

Indeed, the entire "Hunting of the President" pressed by the reactionary right in those years, represents the first major breech of the compacts refered to above in modern times. The fact is that the Republicans refused to acknowledge they had lost the election in '92, and set about working to thwart the electoral verdict by extra-systemic, and in some cases really extra-legal means. Whether the people at large have noticed or not, it is a fact that one of the major parties has ceased to be an honest player in our democratic system, and actively seeks its ruin and overthrow.

Many on the right will insist that the impeachment was nothing diferent from the fall of Nixon, and merely retribution or revenge for that, but that is untrue, and reasonable rightists, at least, will if pressed acknowledge that Nixon did in fact commit a serious offense, namely the use of elements of the national security apparat against his political opposition, and that even if it be maintained he was not the first to do so, he was certainly the first to be caught red-handed at it. An example had to be made, and to their credit, a number of honest Republicans joined in the doing. There really is no comparison between the two episodes. In the "Iran-Contra" matter late in Reagan's second term, the Democrats explicitly ruled impeachment off the table, though they could probably have mustered the votes to do so: this may or may not have been a wise decision by some lights, but it was an adherence to the basic compact of our system, and illustrates the uniqueness of what has been recent Republican policy.

The '00 Coup is a further example. There is no doubt that an honest man committed to our democratic system, finding himself advanced by so narrow a margin, would have himself called for a statewide recount, and should the narrow margin have held up under it, formed the nearest thing possible to a "national unity coalition" government under our system, and acted with a due regard to the narrowness of his margin throughout his term. What occured was the act of a dangerous and un-democratic radical, seeking the overthrow of our venerable national system. It is for that reason that it is impossible for me to ever acknowledge him as a legitimate President, regardless of any subsequent event, and why it is impossible for me to regard the Republican Party today as anything but a revolutionist reactionary organization that stands against everything that makes our system and our country great.

It seems to me that the problem of opposition is that the Democratic Party leadership does not really understand what is happening, that the compact has been broken by one of its principal signatories. They continue to strive to play the game by the rules, and this they must cease to do, for when one party is openly cheating, it forces all others to reply in kind or go to the wall. Among the false wisdoms learned by most at the parental knee are the phrases "It takes two to fight" and "Two wrongs don't make a right." It takes only one to attack, and a wrong not repaid in kind will stand as accomplished fact.

Asked whether evil should be repaid with good, the Master answered: "With what, then, do I repay good? Repay good with good, repay evil with correction."

[bemildred]

57. Another matter ...

Whatever one thinks of these things, I see no reason at all not to
push the accusations of fraud and vote rigging, not to complain, not
to make them defend themselves in any and every way. There is no
reason why we should or must drink the KoolAid, it is not in our
interests to do so. The governing class, in general, is not our
friend, and we need not be theirs.

[The Magistrate]

61. That Is A Tactical Question To Me, My Friend

There is an attractiveness to the course you urge, but there is a good deal of danger associated with pressing it as well, and it must be considered with clear eyes.

It would be most destructive to our side to press this line without real evidence to back the charge. The discrepancy of result with exit polls, and the possibilty of electronic skull-duggery, do not suffice for proof: one cannot leap from stating a thing is possible to making the claim that the fact it is possible proves it was done. Pressing the charge without real evidence will cast into prominence a number of persons who, to put it politely, could not withstand public scrutiny. Certifiable paranoids make poor spokespeople, and will inevitably raise a number of side issues that will leave them, and hence the main charge they make, wholly discredited. As the saying goes, "If you strike the King, you must kill him," and the recoil from such a charge, pressed without evidence by disreputable characters, would be devastating. It would enable the enemy to caricature its opposition in ways that would make it seem a figure of fun, which is the worst blow that can be struck against a party or tendency within the popular mind: what people have once been moved to laugh at they can seldom be persuaded to ever take seriously again.

On the other hand, should real evidence emerge, and no matter in whose hands it initially emerges, the matter ought to be pressed. Charges with evidence behind them should be pressed even if the proveable numbers are insufficient to have altered the outcome. Providing there is some real evidence behind them, such charges would be an important weapon to establish the illegitimacy of the Republican Party and its anti-American tendencies in the popular mind. That, certainly, is a thing that must be done. It is an important rallying point for our side, and it may well serve as a sort of wedge within the enemy's electoral coalition.

"Americans looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent said: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

[onecitizen]

45. I agree with Ariana too

we are far too timid.....well not us. But the party is. You can not get a firm yes or no from any of them. Esp. in front of a crowd(meaning when they're on TV). I don't know why they bother to show up for those so-called "news" programs. How many times did I scream at the TV "just say it John, say it!"? "Yes or no"? "Just say it like you mean it"!

[liberalpragmatist]

12. Hindsight is 20/20

And I disagree that in the end Kerry didn't tackle national security strong enough. Kerry (rightly) ignored the Clintonistas' advice to run purely on domestic issues.

Clearly, in hindsight, we should've stressed an overall theme for clearly, probably responsibility and fairness. But hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately, nobody on the left realized that social and cultural issues were going to be the deciding factor - we all thought it'd be background noise, a motivating factor for a passionate minority, but irrelevant to most people who were concerned about the war and the economy. Clearly, that was a miscalculation, and next time we have to be bolder in articulating an over-arching theme and stressing the rightness or our values.

All that being said, the point is that the left collectively did not see that. Which is unfortunate. But despite some setbacks (and what campaign doesn't have setbacks?) Kerry did a good job. We won voters who were focused on Iraq and the economy. We were credible on national security. We won 3 debates. In the end, the electorate was 50/50, and the outcome depended on turnout; unfortunately, the turnout favored them not us. Had we known the composition of the electorate in advance, had we known how important "moral values" were going to be, of course we would've waged the campaign somewhat differently. It's a lesson to be learned for next time, but it just goes to show that hindsight is 20/20. Kerry's campaign was made in good faith, and had people voted in proportion to their 2000 demographics, we would've won.

Now it's time to move on, learn some lessons, and fight our asses off so that Bush doesn't get radical right judges on the S.Ct., as well as laying groundwork for wins in 2006 and 2008. Endlessly harping on Kerry, who did a fine job in difficult circumstances, is unproductive.

[LittleClarkie]

44. I agree, the Religious Right was in stealth mode

And opinions like this are as valuable as the opinions we had before "The Closer" showed up in October. There were a hundred opinions about what Kerry was doing wrong, and what Kerry should say, and "Why isn't he saying so-and-so?" We lined pretty well after the Temple speech, all hell broke loose volunteer-wise after the first debate, and we were quite sure our guy was winning.

Now that he's lost, we're back to the hundred opinions about what he could have done, what he could have said, yadda yadda.

It came down to GOTV. We did all we could in Milwaukee, I think. But the suburbs came out in droves here. We were very nearly offset, even though at least one of our colleges had impressive numbers voting, and the black vote came out for our first black Congresswoman. The "God and Gun" people are strong here, though.

Even so, I know several heartbroken Christians who are sure we just lost democracy. Wish I could stop crying as if somebody died.

[byronm]

13. Not quite...

I still think it was the "moral issues" to the right wingers that got people voting for Bush.. It was the anti-guy rights pamphlets, the "they will take our bible" flyers and other propoganda.

To me people have religion and morals mixed up. Human rights and human rights issues are about as moral as you can get IMHO and i can't believe people confused religious values with moral values.

[meti57b]

14. it was the religious folk in rural areas that did us in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23754-2004Nov3.html

"What's more, although both campaigns had large numbers of field workers in Ohio, the nature of Bush's operation differed greatly from Kerry's.

Bush's organization may have been the more cohesive and coordinated. It included 85,000 volunteers -- nearly four times the number in 2000 -- that concentrated on what Paduchik called "volunteer to voter" contact. Among other efforts, Bush volunteers held thousands of "parties for the president," in which people were invited by their neighbors to hear about Bush's record and policies."

[Crago]

15. Nope

What did it, in my opinion, the gay marriage issue. It brought out the religious nuts to vote for Bush in droves. Kerry's own state started it and that's what cost him the election.

Also, the millions spent on registering the young voters. They registered, but did not vote. I hope Bush starts drafting them.

It's over. We are stuck with Bush for 4 more years.
This election result has the same effect as having a family member die.

[SemperEadem]

32. exactly... I witnessed it first hand

my brother and his second child (15 yr old daughter) were both completely hung up on the hook of 'gay marriage' being the sole reason why they wouldn't vote for Kerry (in the girl's case, support him).

Never mind that my brother is behind in all of his bill payments, that he and his wife are barely scraping by trying to raise 4 kids--all that mattered to him was that gays not be allowed to marry and their perception was that Kerry was going to allow it--even believing that he would go so far as to stand at the altar and officiate the ceremonies, if you asked them their interpretation. My 15 yr old niece is too dumb to get it that within 3 years, she could be forced to stap a m-16 to herself and go fight insurgents on the front lines in Iran or North Korea--but as long as gays can't marry, she's ok with her little world.

One has to remember that some flavors of these so-called fundamental-cases don't bother with trying to educate themselves on the issues--they mainline every lie their religious leaders weave for them; believe anything that is said on the 700 club by Pat Robertson when all they do is spin lie after lie after lie. If they're not encouraged to seek answers (that's akin to not eating of the tree of knowledge to them), it's easier to manipulate them through fear. That's why believers are referred to as 'sheep'.. one of the dumbest animals on the planet.

So when the bill collectors call looking for their money, or they find out that their insurance for the kids is going up another $150 for each kid, or that he loses his job due to cut backs, it has nothing to do with that mammon-loving cretin he just put back in office. How do you make people understand things when they refuse to open up their minds and eyes and see what's in front of them?

[mazzarro]

16. I am in complete agrement with Arianna Huffington on this

I have been happing on this fact for a long, long time now that the tendency to appease and appeal to the undecided and independent fence-sitters would be disastrous for us. I especially lay the blame on the DLC for pushing this policy of moving to the right of the political center. It did not help us 1998, 2000, 2002 and surely it did not help us in 2004. It is still a wonder that all the high priced consultants in the DLC and DNC have never been able to put these things together and make the necessary adjustments. Well here we are again lost in political wilderness and at the complete mercy of the reThuglicans with the voting public not giving a damn how we fare from here on. Whatever we decide to do we have to harken back to the liberal principles and stand strong for something other than for what brings the most money into our coffers.

[ProfessorPlum]

17. Bull

I'm tired of blaming our candidates and their campaign staff. The voters screwed the pooch on this one. If they can't tell their own ass from a hole in the ground, it isn't Kerry's fault. Jesus.

[Crago]

18. Re: Bull

The Democratic organization did everything possible to win this election.The problem is, the country is now a right-wing country. We now are a one-party country. Hey, that worked well in The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany...didn't it?

[robcon]

31. Contempt for the electorate gets you no where.

It also doesn't get you any votes in Middle America.

[ProfessorPlum]

43. How is stating the obvious contempt?

The voters failed to make a good choice. And that bad choice was made all over the country, 49 million times, not just in the red states.

[The Magistrate]

49. As A Matter Of Curiosity, Professor

When you have done something thoroughly bone-headed, how do you react to someone pointing out that you just did something too stupid for words...?

"Americans looked into the abyss, and fifty-one percent said: 'Hmmm...I wonder what's down there....'"

[saracat]

58. Apparently you never worked with the Campaign Staff????

Kerry was fine ,up until he conceded.The staff ,especially on the ground, with a few exceptions, were worthless! They actually hindered volunteers. And our message was blurred. I was always screaming "Just say it!" Mike McCurry was really struggling with this. He told Kerry to be specific and in the last days ,he was. That being said. I want the votes counted. I don't think we really lost. Not when machines registered negative 25,000 votes in Ohio!

[chefgirl]

20. Yeah, she makes some good points

And while all that may or may not be true, lets keep our eye on the ball here folks.

This election was just as split, right down the middle, as the 2000 election.
While some tweaking in our approach is probably in order, remember, we DID win half the votes. I, for one, am actually slightly encouraged by that.
Don't let the media convince you that this was a shutout.

What the media ought to be spending their time doing is investigating voter fraud. I believe that is where we will find that 3% (or possibly larger) disparity between Bush and Kerry.

-chef-

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

21. Kerry was inept but still should have won

The votes were stolen and democrats are saying nothing which means it will happen again.

[Killarney]

23. I hate Monday morning quarterbacks. If Arianna had all the answers

she should have given them to Kerry BEFORE the vote. Or for fucks sake, run yourself.

[bacchant]

29. She did!

At least a month before the election I heard her voice these very criticisms on NPR. She has been quite vocal about her concerns for some time.

[Cat Atomic]

24. Kerry did play it safe. That's what makes me think it was stolen.

I was a Kucinich volunteer. All throughout the primary season, I was saying we should run a real liberal- not a moderate like Kerry. It seemed to alot of us that a moderate could win easily, so a more liberal candidate might actually have a shot for once.

But the party, in it's infinite wisdom, chose the safe route. We chose a sure thing, and lost anyway. I'm sorry, but this thing was stolen.

[mbee]

30. It was election fraud in red states pure and simple. Here in MD our

votes were counted - WHY? Because the Democrats were stronger then ever, but we had election fraud here a few years ago for the Governor's Race!

[oscar111]

34. Racism, Hate Radio, no Pet Goat ads, not eno AAR, Diebold BBV

In order, those were the cause

Racism elected RR before there was any Hate Radio... but now Hate radio is also in the mix.

TODAY lift your mood... build AAR on your own! Put out leaflets or 3X5 cards with AAR frequeny or url on it! Build our smashing '06 Congess victory TODAY!

[The Magistrate]

62. That Is A Valuable Institution, Sir

"I will fight the secesh till Hell freezes over, then fight on the ice."

[brettdale]

33. The first five words are a lie

The election was not stolen.

[The Magistrate]

41. That Is Not Helpful, Sir

Very few people agree with that, and very few more can be brought in time to agree with it. That makes it useless as line for political agitation....

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[carnie_sf]

36. That's exactly what I've been thinking

We need to reclaim the mantle of liberalism, and wear it proudly. It must be rescued from the ignominy that the great Satan Ronald Reagan consigned it to.

[southpaw]

37. A cogent argument... BUT

Had the Kerry campaign been run as Arianna suggests, the election would have resembled 1972... or 1984.

[The Magistrate]

54. No, Sir, It Would Not

Those situations bear no resemblance to the current one.

[SmokingJacket]

38. Humph. Still don't trust Arianna.

Kerry did a GOOD JOB. He WON the debates. Handily.

We wuz robbed.

[Piperay]

40. Correct

I got so sick of the catering to the 'undecides' especially when the repukes weren't bothering with them and instead focused on their base.

[mazzarro]

46. Exactly right - the rePukes never bothered about the "undeicides'

who somehow managed to vote for the chimp* - at least a good chunk of them. Why?

[Uzybone]

47. Many good points, but to overlook Gay marriage

as the main reason we lost this election is to decieve yourself. Gay marriage got the GOP base totally riled up. Even more riled up than gays themselves. Its sad.

[Andromeda]

55. The machines. It was the machines.

The machines lost the election for the Democrats. Nothing else played as big a role in losing as THE MACHINES!

Why can't these journalists look into our corrupt voting system instead of waxing eloquent about things they believe played a role, in this election disaster.

Why don't they open their eyes for crying out loud!

There were probably hundreds of factors that played a role in this loss. But you have to remember -- Bush flubbed big time in the debates. He can't even speak English very well. He's uninspiring, dull and has a stupid smirk on his face all the time.

Oh yes, Bush's message: "We're gonna smoke 'em out. Uh, uh, uh, I can't think of any mistakes I've made but just give me a minute and I'm sure I'll think of something."

This, folks, is our leader. The leader of the free world. The leader with his finger on the red button.

Maybe Kerry did contribute to his loss by an ambiguous message and the perception of being a flip-flopper who didn't bleed enough when he risked his life in Vietnam. They accused him of being a traitor for mediating a peace treaty with Vietnam so we could find our POW's.

No matter what Kerry said he wasn't going to be accepted by the "heartland." To them he was just another Massachusetts liberal; an elitist who was out of touch with the common man.

The biggest mistake Kerry made was not being from the South which is sad because there are many states in this great republic of ours that are not geologically advantageous.

The MACHINES made more of a difference in the Midwest and the South and this was bad for Kerry but good for Bush. Who's gonna know if the MACHINES malfunctioned? There's no paper trail.

How convenient for the BFEE.

[Generator]

59. Again if we were fucked either way

then we still would have lost. (I'm still not conceding fraud)

If this country's voters chose Smirk again-then assailing him on his war or anything else wouldn't work. They love the chimp.

If Kerry said what we really thought-a la- Dean-Bush is a liar and more-then Kerry wouldn't have won those votes either.

It's a pipe dream.

It's either a winning message or it's not. If you don't believe it was fraud, then it wasn't a winning message.

They approve of going to Iraq (whether it's based on false information it doesn't matter).

They approve of having an incompetent leader.

They chose the clearly less good choice.

I'm not blaming Kerry, and I'm not blaming the campaign. I don't think you can have it both ways-oh if we just told them Bush was an incompetent religious ideolgue and we were the good guys, they would have voted for us. They didn't.

[JPace]

63. Isn't it ironic? Gore said after reflecting on his loss

that if he had it to do all over again he would
"LET IT RIP!" the repugs did it to him because
he held himself back and now Kerry may have to
come to the same conclusion.

We keep doing the same thing in the same way and
yet expecting different results. That is the
definition of insanity.

In truth I still think they tampered with the
voting machines and stole just enough to win.
So maybe in the end it would not have mattered
how the campaign was waged.

[Robeson]

64. I agree with most of what she said, especially...

...the continual flubs and obfuscations on the Iraq War issue. We should have owned that issue, and have beaten BushCo over the head with it every chance we got. And not only the war itself but the continual lies coming from this administraton which led into the war. Michael Moore - and I'm getting ready for all the Michael Moore haters now - laid out the entire case we should have made against Bush in his movie. In fact when I walked out of the theater after that movie, everybody around me was talking about how we now had the agenda to lay out to the nation regarding on Bush. Kerry, to some degree, did walk away from it, and was too careful.