Hindsight is 20/20

[liberalpragmatist]

I disagree that in the end Kerry shouldn't have tackled national security as much. 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.

[Tweed]

1. Have you read any of the posts here? I think hindsight is 10/20, 5/20

0/20 for some.