The last week before the election I traveled around Ohio with Lila Lipscomb (the mother from Fahrenheit 9/11), to speak to college kids about the war and the election.
I lost my brother on 9/11 in the WTC. Lila and I acted as a "one-two punch" on how the Bush administration policy was reckless, dangerous, and counterproductive in dealing with our very real national security problems.
When I spoke, I focused exclusively on the Bush campaign's decision to "run on 9/11"-- which I believe won him the election, and not the "values" factor.
My argument to the college audiences was that it was ludricrous for Bush to run on 9/11 when you look at his record and response to the attacks. He did practically nothing to prevent them, launched a war in retaliation that ANY U.S. president would have launched (did not take much courage to attack Afghanistan when your working in a climate where they are having 9/11 candlelight vigils in places like Tehran), and then diverted resources and troops to Iraq in what will ultimately become one of the biggest national security mistakes of any U.S. President-- that is when 51% of Americans get there senses again and quit taking comfort in Bush's "black and white" view of the world.
I came across this piece today from Arianna Huffington and feel that it is consistent with what Lila and I encountered "on the ground" in Ohio.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1111-26.htm
Kerry could have won this election had he taken Bush on more agressively about his failures leading up to 9/11, and after 9/11. Lila and I have gotten emails from the organizer of the Ohio trip saying he has gotten emails from many of the "fence sitter" voters on those campuses, who came over to Kerry's side after hearing us talk, and therefore better understood what a horrible failure Bush has been precisely in the area that he and his people are so cocky about: countering terrorism.
Here is an op-ed that Lila and I wrote during our time in Ohio, that encapsulates what we were talking to students about.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1101-32.htm
The lesson I take from Kerry's loss is that the "conventional wisdom" that dictacted his campaign (whether it came from the Clinton folks or not) was absolutely wrong. He should have said he would not have attakced Iraq now given what he knows, the polls showed that swing voters wanted Bush's opponent to take a discernably different stand on the war. Yes, the Bush group would have swamped the airways with ads saying Kerry was to weak to lead, but it was Bush's record on failing to protect the U.S. homeland BEFORE 9/11 that would have easily countered these attacks from Bush. I had a pipedream about a Kerry counter-ad to the "wolves ad" where you can use their offensive "logic" of our enemies waiting for weakness to attack. Well...hmmmm...on whose watch were we attacked on 9/11/01?
Anyway, Lila and I had success in Ohio by directly attacking Bush where it was presummed he was the strongest. If only Kerry would have done the same to a much, much bigger audience. We only reached about 2,000 people total on our trip. Kerry was obviously reaching many, many more people.
Andrew Rice
Oklahoma City, OK
younger brother to David Rice, WTC 9/11 victim