[lbo-talk] Re: No, actually, I don't believe it.

[hari.kumar at sympatico.ca]

From: "Nathan Newman" <nathanne at nathannewman.org>
....
"I guarantee that the DLC types will be mounting a campaign to say that the
problem in 2004 was that Kerry was too liberal and the Dems should have
nominated Lieberman or some more conservative governor or Senator.
Nathan Newman"

REPLY
But again as an outsider - I do not understand this logic.
Surely - 
If it is clear that the evangelical vote was brought out - & Bush was hewing to his 'principled' right line - Bush  did not "move to the centre"; 

THIS ARGUES: 
that the Dems SHOULD supposedly move to their supposed left. They did NOT hew to theer 'traditional' line. They moved to be more bellicose than the bellicose.
And who in Bush-County would be fooled by that? Surely a 'proven' bellicose is better than a possibly un-bellicose bellicose? 

For those who have argued the line that the Kerry campaign represented an 'opportunist' approach - in many ways the post-mortem of this campaign holds some support. 

Someone said Nader is a dead issue. 
Indeed that surely is right. 

But the point of all this fevered examination of the entrails is surely what next? 

I actually wonder if not only the fact of 4 years of Bush; 
has the added danger of enhancing the "apparent" credibility of the Democrats next time around for the progressive movement. At some stage principles msut re-enter against opportunism - at least in my limited view.
In sorrow, 
Hari Kumar. 

-----------------------