Skip to main content

View Diary: Trippi Op-Ed in the WSJ: Yes. Yes. Yes! (276 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Trippi - where the heck has he been? (3.62)
    Personally I am not impressed with Joe Trippi and his rise to MSNBC and to WSJ.  I believe Kerry did win and I believe that the grass roots and Howard Dean did help.
      It is ridiculous for him to say that Gore was a stronger candidate! Where is his memory?!!! Gore was a disaster in the debates. Gore ran from Clinton, which was the reason he did so well, and should have won.  But Gore did not carry his own state in the election. Kerry delivered Massachusetts, and New Hampshire... and the other Gore states. He won.
      Kerry was destroyed by the media in this race, and he still won.  Gore would NEVER have stood up to the face-ripping-off (I love Maureen Dowd's imagery) that Kerry was subjected to.
      Trippi is silly to come out with the others and lambast the Dems and their relationship to their base. Their base is there. Kerry won because of not only the Dems base but also because most of Americans did not want Bush reelected. Bush is being reinaugurated due to voter fraud.
      Hey... I had enough of Joe Trippi after watching him the last few months of the election on MSNBC, as their Dem. guy, he joined in the fray criticizing and ripping apart the cause of real patriots.  
       This article strikes me as a little too late.  
    •  Gore vs. Kerry (none)
      First off, I think Joe's saying Kerry was the weaker candidate b/c he performed worse than Gore among women and Hispanics. Now that's partly an invalid conclusion - that Hispanics went for Bush in higher numbers this time around is not just a function of the dem candidate but has to do with long-term sociological and cultural developments in the Hispanic community.

      But secondly, if Joe isn't actually saying what you attribute to him, I will: I'd support Gore over Kerry any time! I don't find either man particularly personable. But I have Gore down as the more intelligent and innovative of the two, and the one with the better understanding of the big picture. The thing that always bothered me most about Kerry was that he seemed so much yesterday's papers. Anything new he had to offer he had ripped off the Dean campaign. (But I acknowledge that Gore screwed up the debates, or the first two anyway, which Kerry didn't - so Kerry probably is the better fighter.)

      Before you flame me: my only excuse for Kerry-bashing here is that I believe we need to learn the lesson that we cannot afford to nominate another candidate without new ideas. Ever.

      If you cannot convince them, confuse them. Harry S. Truman

      by brainwave on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:03:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gore (4.00)
        wandered the desert four years and found his religion.

        Did I like Gore in 2000: eh!!!
        Do I like Gore in 2004: Hell Yeah!!!

        Frankly, I can't see Kerry becoming a born again honest to god Democrat whereas Gore has been to the Mountain Top and looked over. Kerry is still in the foothills. Dean is already on the other side wondering what the hell is taking people so long to catch up.

      •  and (4.00)
        part of it is people that voted for Gore, voted for Gore, and not against Bush

        "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

        by bluestateLIBertarian on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:29:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (none)
          and the only reason more people didn't is because they were voting against the guy who just was president, and wasn't even running!

          Paraphrased from David Cross.

          Osama's followers think he has "moral values" too.

          by ragnark on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 02:16:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i love david cross (none)
            there is someone who'd be a sharp consultant to explain the republican mind-set, eh?
            also -- i wonder if, in the lead-up to '08 it might be better to try for a sharper focus, rather than debates between 10 candidates?  that seemed beyond ridiculous.
    •  I agree (none)
      Trippi makes good points yes, but as mentioned, we've been tossing these ideas around for a while. The guy is overrated in my opinion. He's criticizing Kerry(which is valid, dont get me wrong), but who the hell is he. He had a candidate that spoke clear, had a clear vision, raised 40 million, and he couldnt take him past the IA caucuses. mostwhat he says on MSNBC is painfully obvious.

      More people voted for a liberal senator from MA than voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984.

      by JP2 on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 10:18:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What??? (none)
      OK, the media was much harder on Gore in 2000 than they were on Kerry this year -- much harder.  It's not even close.  Not even close.  Yes, the press gave way too much time to the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and didn't even try to sniff out what was good about Kerry's past -- they were lazy and blase.  But the press -- the Washington Press Corps -- showed Kerry a level of respect, a willingness to look the other way when he said two different things to two different groups on trade, on abortion etc. that they would not tolerate from Gore.  They hated Gore.  I mean, hated him.  It was a "face-ripping-off" and much of it from Maureen Dowd.

      I'm not going to argue about fraud and the winner except to say I disagree: I've seen no evidence that suggests Kerry won the election, certainly not the popular vote.  If you're going to argue that Kerry lost due to fraud and misallocation of technology then so did Gore.  And Clinton really did win a majority in 1996 too by that standard.

      As for Kerry winning his home state, he's from Massachusetts!  Gore is from Tennessee -- he was simply too liberal to carry it, and he still won 6% more of the vote there than Kerry did this year.  Besides that, the differential between Gore and Bush in Mass was larger than the differential between Kerry and Bush this year, despite the Nader effect in 2000.

      For what it's worth, I do think Kerry was a more competent campaigner, stump speaker, than Gore.  But these are not good arguments.  They were both winnable elections and our candidates lost them.

      By the idea of community...we are all enriched and ennobled. -- Michael Dukakis

      by tlaura on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 07:55:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, and I'm not saying (none)
        that misallocation of technology isn't a problem and that Clinton didn't win a majority in 96 and Gore didn't win the election in 2000 and Kerry didn't win Ohio this year (though he did lose the popular vote I think).  It's a huge problem and I'd like Kerry to tackle it in the Senate.  It's just a long-standing problem that reflects on many elections and, while I agree with Frida's views on Trippi who seems to vascillate between genius and hack, it's not the sole explanation for why we didn't win this year.

        By the idea of community...we are all enriched and ennobled. -- Michael Dukakis

        by tlaura on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 08:02:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site