Kerry lost thanks to the ‘Swift-boat Veterans for Truth’, who raised false concerns about his military record.

I thought it was that and his flip flopping, his attempt to offer little else than not being George Bush, his failing the BBQ test etc. Quite frankly his salute/I’m ready to serve crap was so bad he almost deserved to lose on that alone.

Obama isn’t lying back and thinking of Indiana (or should that be bending over?) he is responding to the smears, but not in the way you initially advised. Now you attempt to claim that a rebuttal is as good as equating republicanism with racism when before you state it wouldn’t be as effective.

It’s no wonder you defend Kerry, when you behave as dishonestly and as weakly as he did during his campaign in trying to cover for the dishonourable nature of his activist behaviour and the debatable nature of his awards for heroism. I note you avoid any consideration of his opposition to continued involvement in Iraq, which contrasts with Obama’s phased withdrawl strategy and the McCain-sponsored surge. I also note you fail to recognise any of the glaring inconsistencies in his 2004 programme which have since been shown to be unsustainable – death penalty for terrorists, I ask you?

Your assumption that the clear language I use should be judged in the terms of euphemism that you prefer is offensive and damaging. Raising legitmate concerns means just that: When did McCain start criticising the war in Iraq? How did McCain react when Katrina struck New Orleans? What is his connection with Rev John Hagee? What about the lobbying support McCain recieves from Ralph Reed, who he investigated in relation to corrupt lobbying practises? Or all his other lobbyists with connections to every possible dodgy company? Why is it that the Straight Talk Express has gone silent? Why don’t we see his family’s tax returns? Why haven’t any questions been asked about Cindy McCain’s conflicts of interests between her campaign groups and business interests?

When it comes to measuring up for the highest office there are no excuses.

Which is why it you shame yourself for suggesting I was being blase about GW Bush. I do not excuse him for any mistake he has made, I try to understand the reasons for them in order to learn any means to prevent a repitition of them in future.

If you are so certain about who the right candidate is it would be helpful for you to share your knowledge with the rest of us poor unfortunates.

In the meantime please stop building up demons to fill your nightmares with, because delving into the pit to purge those demons is a thankless and fruitless task – if you ever escape, it won’t be unscathed.

http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/index

If you still think these lies, and the swiftboating of John Kerry “addressed the legitmiate concerns”, then I’m afraid you don’t know the whole story.

Furthermore, there’s no point you telling me fighting fire with fire is a bad idea. Its like saying that Democrats shouldn’t “raise legitimate concerns” about Republicans, only the latter can.

If I was a Democrat, fighting against the smear machine, the only winning strategy is an offensive one rather than a defensive one.

He didn’t lose because of any smears, he lost because there were huge concerns over his proposed domestic reforms, his economic programme and his foreign policy positions.

Kerry lost thanks to the ‘Swift-boat Veterans for Truth’, who raised false concerns about his military record.

Obama might be a whole lot better than McCain, but both are about as clean as a toilet at Glastonbury.

Which is why I’d support going on the offensive against Republicans to ensure Obama won, rather than simply lying back and hoping the right person won. I know who the right person is.

And lastly, you can’t be blase about GW Bush winning, and then criticise American politics. Both are the way they are because that’s how the system has evolve.d We have to live with it. Now the question is – who is the better candidate and how can that person win?

Please don’t ever use the word honorable in conjunction with any politician, unless you are using it formally, and especially not in conjunction with Wilson’s name – he was a master of dirty tricks and talent-spotted Jack Straw for his ability in this area for gawd’s sake!

But getting back to the relative merits of brain-dead morons and well-intentioned fools – how do we create an accurate measurement?

Good point. If we ever solve that problem it’d move democracy away from the idea that it is just a teensy bit better that tyranny.

I couldn’t care less about declaring any support for any party which contests any foreign elections, I only care about the consequences of them and what I can do.

I’d like to agree with that, but you have said that I am an idealist, whereas practical politics means that it matters a hell of a lot to you and me who occupies the White House, given the submissive nature of British PMs to POTUS’s. With the honourable exception of Harold Wilson, perhaps.

It is also aggravating for those of us that think democracy is the real deal to see it being demeaned in the way it was.

I don’t deny that the Republicans cheated, just as I don’t deny that every successful US Presidential campaign has benefited from cheating, or that every losing US Presidential campaign has benefited from cheating. And lying.

I also don’t deny that for every occasion any candidate who has stretched and bent the rules to their benefit real people have suffered. Sometimes the suffering can be measured in pure cash terms, sometimes in sweat, sometimes in tears and often with blood.

But to most politicians the suffering is invisible, that is, unless it impacts upon their power base.

But getting back to the relative merits of brain-dead morons and well-intentioned fools – how do we create an accurate measurement?

With regard to Bush we can easily state that X amount of people have died as a result of the adventure in Iraq, but from the point of his successful reelection we have to ask how many more would have died had as a result of immediate pull-out and how many more would have died as a result of failing to institute the ‘surge’?

This is where Bush actually starts to win out over Kerry. His stength is that he accepts his limitations, is more amenable to political reality and able to adjust his policy to fit facts (when he stopped trying to fit the facts to his policy after 2004/5) – although he is the face of the administration his lack of obvious intellectual dominance insulates him from any loss of political capital in admitting mistakes, which would otherwise destabilise a Kerry or Cheney and force them to continue with a failing and unpopular policy.

So in terms of our dispute you are arguing from an idealistic point of view that the better man was cheated out of a deserving victory, while I’m arguing from a realistic position that we got the better candidate, as sickening as that may sound.

Whichever way history decides, we can bewail our misfortune all we want, but we will still have to live with the result and the truth will remain that due to the paucity of candidates we got what we deserved. As will also be the case come November.

I couldn’t care less about declaring any support for any party which contests any foreign elections, I only care about the consequences of them and what I can do.

Still, as far as I can tell from your post, you are not denying that the heroic Republicans won within the rules? Are you?

Hanging chads, Florida, what does it take for you to recognise a Republican for the evil little person he or she might be?

I have no disagreement with you about the obvious fact that US democracy is fucked. However, this is remarkable:

He gained a reputation for inconsistency and incoherence (ie ‘flip-flopping’) which would have been more damaging than being simply ‘wrong’ in the way Bush has been

You elect a President, frankly electing a brain dead moron to the highest office in the Western World – which strikes me, and most of the human race, as incredibly stupid. Kerry may have had his faults, but he was not a brain dead moron. Bush re-defined the meaning of the word ‘wrong’. He’s not such a popular wee boy these days, is he?

There is probably an analogy from ancient Rome.

complaining about a dodgy linesman when you’re playing for penalties is plain bad sportsmanship. Both parties have been guilty of gerrymandering and worse for more than a century – it’s just sour grapes to admit that the other side are better at it than yours.

You allow yourself to get sucked into support for a corrupt two-party hegemony if you think Kerry would’ve been any better than Bush – exactly what has he done since 2004 to suggest he deserves any support?

He didn’t lose because of any cheating, he lost because he couldn’t convince enough voters to support him.

He didn’t lose because of any smears, he lost because there were huge concerns over his proposed domestic reforms, his economic programme and his foreign policy positions.

He gained a reputation for inconsistency and incoherence (ie ‘flip-flopping’) which would have been more damaging than being simply ‘wrong’ in the way Bush has been.

He’s just another dynast who’d have strengthened the hold the establishment has over the people. His family made their money in the opium trade and he married the Heinz heiress; he was a member of the Skull and Bones society and is closer to the inner circle of the US elite than any of the Bushes ever will be.

If you think John Kerry is a supporter of democracy you have had the wool pulled squarely over your eyes.

The US election isn’t about Republicans vs Democrats, it’s about idiots vs fools and liars vs cheats!

Obama might be a whole lot better than McCain, but both are about as clean as a toilet at Glastonbury.

Over the last two elections, have you beloved Republicans not won through debateable gerrymadering, or worse?

This is not democracy as we were led to expect it, was it?

No, thomas, it was not.. Hanging chads, ffs.

Get over it, the Republicans won by cheating.

When transposed to politics the fire-fighting analogy is meaningless at best and damaging at worst because it only works by shifting the emphasis of the discussion from tactics to the unspecified nature of the terms they are used under.

I disagree that smears are necessarily damaging, that is unless they are relevant and they are factually correct – in which case the damage is really self-inflicted and deserved.

The way the Obama campaign has effectively rebutted the attack of Jerome Corsi’s The Obama Nation by highlighting the inaccurate reporting and inappropriate use of examples to make flawed arguments with unsustainable conclusions has proved far better at negating its impact and damping down any controversy they may provoked by reacting in a tit-for-tat manner – Corsi may be a racist fringe lunatic, but unless he can rally the more moderate support of people who don’t know the full extent of his views, thereby reinforcing the false divisions built by his lies, sinking into the gutter to duke it out will prove diversionary and counterproductive to the real aims Obama is working towards.

It is also strategically inept to place the onus on one side of the debate so early on in the campaign as over-exposure on one candidate can easily lead to inverted perceptions of their realive strengths and weaknesses. It is far to early to draw any real conclusions from polling returns as many people are still seeking more information before they feel they feel able to make a proper decision.

Aaron – play the ball? I thought is was funny way of making a demonstrating my description by responding to an accusation of naivete with an escalated version of the same insult. I’m sorry you didn’t pick up on it, I’ll try to be more obvious next time I make a ‘this is, how to’ point.

Yeah sure. That’s presumably why Republicans have always won in the past through negative campaigning.

Frankly, it is shocking that you recommend using the same tactics as your opponents whilst maintaining that your aims are different.

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. It depends of course on what your goals are. If you want to sit on the sidelines forever like a puritan – do so. But in the face of the Republican smear machine you’ll lose every time.

Are you sure you’d not really prefer the Republican candidate to win?

Nope. On policy differences I’m as far as I can be.

Oh no Sunny, looks like you’ll never again be voted CiF blogger of the year!

Thomas,

I’m sorry, but while you attempt to make a legitimate point, most of your reasoning is a bit daft.

Right, I’m off to Pärnu Aquapark.

Sure, there are many people who, like you and the evangelicals, are influenced by symbols or icons, but you are all on the illiberal idealist wing, while the ones who will decide this US election are the level-headed, mid-range, heartland professionals and independents who are unprejudiced either way and have yet to make a firm decision.

Frankly, it is shocking that you recommend using the same tactics as your opponents whilst maintaining that your aims are different. It is clear you either do not recognise the different political dynamic at work between the parties on different sides of the divide, or you disagree that tactics create outcomes. I’ll repeat for you: the ends do not justify the means, they are determined by them.

While I’m sure you are convinced that Obama is absolutely the better candidate and cannot find any way to equivocate in the matter, you set yourself up for a fall by reducing the contest to a simple decision about what you think from your personal position – how do you think you are going to win those voters over by telling them they are stupid? Is disagreement on the matter illegitimate? Why not then lobby for a constitutional amendment to make it law that Obama must win and anybody who thinks otherwise should be imprisoned for the duration?

Just as the Guardianista campaign to write to potential swing voters to urge them to choose Kerry last time spectacularly backfired and built resistance to him, your attitude could prove off-putting to any number of people and by raising the issue of race as an electoral issue you give some a reason to vote against their better judgement – which is often enough to make the difference in a close call.

So the effect of your argument is that Obama should behave like a Republican so he can win like a Republican. Are you sure you’d not really prefer the Republican candidate to win?

This is wishful thinking at best, and naive at worst. The voters are hardly ever hardheaded and serious, and are VERY influenced by symbols and rhetoric. Bush won last time by casting doubts about Kerry’s record when there was no evidence to back that up.

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama/to vote for McCain if that’s what you see fit, so it’s odd that commenters here seem surprised that the Republicans haven’t already conceded defeat and presented their new messiah with a walkover!

There is a gulf of difference between hard issues, patriotism and bigotry, and it isn’t helpful to the cause of trying to win your opponents over by ascribing to them the basest of motives.

Any suggestion of race in the debate will sink it into the gutter and tarnish the illusions of the left more than the cynicism of the right. The fact that Obama has tried to rise above the petty gutter-sniping of the commentary gallery has raised the quality of debate this time round, for which we should all be thankful. He has to win on the issues, because the decisive voters are hardheaded and serious and could care less about symbols, and whatever anyone else says it is only sensible to hold fire with caution.

So this post doesn’t make sense – unless, that is, it has been motivated as a kite-flying experiment on the issue of race with respect to UK politics. Now, which Labour MP and acquaintance of Obama could fancy themselves as a potential successor our current premier?

DES’s point that: Well you called the entire American left weak. The Dems are a broad church.

Is true to the point that the Democrats are always defending a Republican attack rather than launching their own. This is why Kerry lost – he didn’t more actively challenge the Republican message machine.

And its the bloggers who have forced the Democrats to grow some cojones and fight back, and even ignore Republican ‘talking points’.

The Republican party is good for two reasons:
1) They’re unscrupulous and will say anything
2) They’re united in their message, talking points, narratives and in backing each other.

The left is universally weak because there’s this obsession with ideological purity over actually winning elections and understanding that in politics you don’t always get what you want from your politicians.

There’s plenty of evidence of that from the UK too, and a theme I’ll return to in subsequent pieces.

The Obama election should offer a good lesson to the British left too, not just Democrats.

Yeah, Kerry stood by and let the right trash him and win. Obama, while resting on his laurels initially, is fighting back. See here.

Good man. My apologies I haven’t been to your blog for a day or two. 0:-)

If Obama does not win, then they need to stop playing along with the news media. Also they neeed a new generation of Dems who are prepared to fight back, against a Republican machine that will do anything to win.

A fair point. But the American left has quite hard-left factions (indeed some very committed to a much larger Welfare State).

I consider myself a left-winger because I’m radically liberal on social issues (I may call myself a social libertarian) and very left-wing with regard to foreign policy. I’m probably more rightwing/centrist on economic issues, though. I believe in equality but also in effort and reward.

BTW. Don’t miss this. Rattled me a bit. ;o)

Weak parties lose. ~ dirty euro

Well you called the entire American left weak. The Dems are a broad church.

However, I’d agree that the Democratic Congress and Senate have proven incredibly spineless in not using their majorities to clip the President’s wings more, and I’m outraged they’ve flatly rejected any moves to impeach President Bush. The Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about getting his dick sucked, Bush’s lies have been much more damaging and significant. But this cowardliness doesn’t extend to the American left en masse.