What it all means to me
The press--both mainstream and not-so mainstream--have given a lot of attention lately to the "shakeup" of Kerry's campaign team. While nobody as yet appears to have been dismissed from camp Kerry, there are more people signing on to help with the "message" every day--heck, even an ailing former President Clinton spent a good portion of his weekend offering advice to Kerry on how to right the sinking ship that is Kerry-Edwards '04. And here's my take on the whole thing:
Kerry needs help in broadcasting his message because Kerry DOESN'T HAVE a message! (Or at least not one that can help fix the problems of today--VietNam narratives, regardless of their accuracy, don't solve a lot of problems in 2004) There's a lot of things he wants to say, but he has a hard time delineating them as part of a grand direction for his team. There's only one person at fault for this: Kerry. But I doubt he'd take the fall for his own floundering--he certainly hasn't in the past.
And his reluctance to personally take control of his campaign is showing--in no uncertain terms--just how indecisive he is.
Now I'm all for getting a few (maybe even more than a few) valuable opinions before making a major decision.
But "how do I get my message out?" should not be a MAJOR decision in September of an election year!
And don't forget this: when you're talking about the office of President in 2004 and for the foreseeable future, you are talking about the office of Commander in Chief of the United States' armed forces during a time of war. Military organizations don't tend to work well without clear, accountable leadership. The least harsh thing you can say about Kerry so far is that he has been something less than clear and accountable in/for his own campaign's message.
He would be less of a Commander in Chief than a Facilitator in Counsel to the Chief--and anybody with a nickname other than "Bushie" would be allowed to play.
And that's too bad. It appears that the Bushie's are experts at conveying strength during times of war, and that wouldn't be a bad message for Kerry to learn something about.
Kerry needs help in broadcasting his message because Kerry DOESN'T HAVE a message! (Or at least not one that can help fix the problems of today--VietNam narratives, regardless of their accuracy, don't solve a lot of problems in 2004) There's a lot of things he wants to say, but he has a hard time delineating them as part of a grand direction for his team. There's only one person at fault for this: Kerry. But I doubt he'd take the fall for his own floundering--he certainly hasn't in the past.
And his reluctance to personally take control of his campaign is showing--in no uncertain terms--just how indecisive he is.
Now I'm all for getting a few (maybe even more than a few) valuable opinions before making a major decision.
But "how do I get my message out?" should not be a MAJOR decision in September of an election year!
And don't forget this: when you're talking about the office of President in 2004 and for the foreseeable future, you are talking about the office of Commander in Chief of the United States' armed forces during a time of war. Military organizations don't tend to work well without clear, accountable leadership. The least harsh thing you can say about Kerry so far is that he has been something less than clear and accountable in/for his own campaign's message.
He would be less of a Commander in Chief than a Facilitator in Counsel to the Chief--and anybody with a nickname other than "Bushie" would be allowed to play.
And that's too bad. It appears that the Bushie's are experts at conveying strength during times of war, and that wouldn't be a bad message for Kerry to learn something about.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home