Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
On another post of yours, I don't know if Kerry has made the right move or not in fighting back against the SwiftVet allegations and trying to paint a picture linking it all to GWB. I do know that the word is that the controversy was hurting Kerry in swing states, and among some groups (such as veterans) where Kerry had been doing much better than Bush could afford him to do. So, the campaign felt that they had to fight back somehow to clearly refute what they could and tar the rest with the brush of partisan hackery. Remains to be seen if it will work.
|
Completely agree. As much as the folks here want to paint this as Kerry's Waterloo, it's August, fer chrissakes. There is a long way to go in this marathon.*
The thing that rang the most true for me on this was some talking head over the weekend saying that this was a test of the Dems' willingness to fight the good fight. Leaving the charges unanswered would give the implicit message that Kerry lacked the will to do what it takes to win, and thus could not be trusted to represent our nation in war and/or diplomacy, where winning is the only thing. "How you play is for college ball."
Quote:
|
Kerry tried to ignore it for weeks, and it didn't help. The net effect is not helpful, but arguably better than remaining silent (if this makes Bush look bad too).
|
If I can do this without "flipflopping," at least in the way that term is currently being used, I actually fall more on Hello's side of this point. There's got to be something between silence and whining. I support Kerry's fighting back, but man I wish he could have found another way to do it than complaining to the fucking FEC. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say he's "acting guilty," but I would prefer that he didn't respond like the nerdy kid on the playground who got his glasses knocked off in dodgeball. At least, that's how I acted when that happened.
There has to be a way to laugh this stuff off while staying credible on defense, and perhaps even going on the attack. Unsurprisingly, I just think that Kerry lacks the likability gene or something to pull this off, in contrast to his esteemed opponent. My favorite example in this regard was the thing I heard about Obama's response to Keyes' demand for the same number of debates that Ryan would have gotten: "That was a special for in-state candidates only." It's funny, nonresponsive to the thrust of the question, and points the listener to a weakness of the person attacking him. Possibly apocryphal, since I haven't read it anywhere, but still.
* Of course, I also found myself saying last night that the Red Sox were "peaking at the right time", so I may not be credible on this subject. FWIW, I am currently less intoxicated than I was then. I think.
Threaded Mode