Democrats running for office should really have some idea regarding the track record and performance results of their chosen inner circle of trusted advisors.
It amazes me, therefore, why a proven loser and wet noodle like Bob Shrum keeps on getting recycled back over and over again as the campaign advisor du jour for Democratic Presidential candidates.
Certaintly, Al Gore should have recognized that Clinton's successful candidacy in 1992 came from running an aggressive and offensive-minded campaign led by James Carville and Clinton's own nose for the framing of issues.
The Gore campaign started itself in a big, big, hole when he had lackluster people like Tony Coelho (eventually replaced), Bill Daley, and Bob Shrum orchestrating his campaign.
These "geniuses" all convinced Gore that he had to publically rebuke Bill Clinton all over again (this, long after his Senate acquittal and 12-months of media exhaustion) and "distance himself" from Clinton. This, however, was nothing more than the RWCM's own wish-fulfillment talking in hopes for seeing a campaign waged not on the excellant track record of the Clinton-Gore adminstration & policies, but for a campaign waged strickly on the familiar GOP turf of character profiling, assasination, smears, and moral-high-ground-myth-making ( Bush ).
Bush was such a lousy candidate that Gore won anyways, but, by such a narrow margin that it could be stolen out right from under him, in the light of day, by direct obstruction of the counting of legal votes and getting the right-wing court to block the recount remedy.
As we all know, had Gore made the campaign about the track record & pocketbook benefits of Clintonomics .VS. the track record of Reaganomics, and, had Clinton himself campaigned throughout Arkansas and Tennessee, Gore would have prevailed in a landslide.
So loser Bob Shrum is brought back in the John Kerry campaign and we see no mention of Abu Grahib whatsoever at any time in Kerry's campaign. Had Kerry pounded away relentlessly on issues like: the shame, horror, and UNAMERICAN legacy of Abu Grahib, the Worldwide embarrasment (and abuse of office) of Bush-fed WMD fiction, the tragic death count (both civilian and servicemen), and, we saw the old 1971 John Kerry back in form, there's no doubt Bush would have had to declare martial law to still remain in the White House.
What happens here is that all the RWCM-RNC-RWRadio guys figure out in advance (with a little help from Frank Lutnz) where the favorable and unfavorable contrasts (and propaganda) are, and then, they go out to the Democrats and pressure them with: "shhh, you can't talk about that subject?, you can't talk about rich .vs poor, Don't say that!!!, you have to say this, you can only say that..", etc.
Like fools, these so-called "genuis" Democratic consultants (and even the candidates) then play right into their game plan and their own campaigns then find themselves awash in side-issues, backpeddling, and NeoCon-policy-imitation.
Then, they become surprised when they lose.
No folks, the choice here is about having a country ruled by an aristocracy of war-profiteers, monopolists, cooporate enterprises, and their paid-for media-assets at the expense of everyone else (and, also, the entire world), or, having an actual functioning democracy, true freedom, with economic opportunity for all.
It's time the Bob Shrums, Tony Coelhos, Bill Daleys etc., of the world be fired and fired forever and be replaced only with people that understand the value of the highly contrasting message, aggressive, offensive-minded, pull-no-punches campaigning, and showing people in bold, stark, clear terms: just how messed-up the country is (and the world) with the Neo-Cons running things!
(and , yes, especially on "security").