Slate: The film about John Kerry's campaign won't tell you why he lost

[liberalpragmatist]

Inside the Bubble, a documentary that promises to reveal how the Kerry campaign lost the 2004 election, has restored a bit of campaign-season buzz to Washington. The Drudge Report called the film a "devastating behind-the-scenes look." Lloyd Grove promised despair among Kerry loyalists and snickering from Hillary's followers as the doc revealed the Massachusetts senator, who still hopes to run in 2008, as boobish and flailing. Democrats e-mailed preview clips and weighed how much exposing the underbelly of a Democratic campaign would hurt the party. Defensive quotes from Kerry staffers about the film suggested they had something to hide.

<snip>

Unfortunately, Inside the Bubble, which premiered at the New York Television Festival Thursday, doesn't do much to answer those questions. The movie overpromises the way sham politicians do. There are some amusing and entertaining moments, but there is little in it to explain why Kerry lost—no inside scoop from his senior advisers or much insight into the man himself. The strategists who may have botched the effort are either not seen or pass through in a blink. Instead, we spend a lot of time with secondary and tertiary players.

<snip>

As for the candidate himself, we don't see much of him that we haven't seen already. But there are a few surprises. Kerry the candidate seems tantalizingly less stiff than we remember. As he waits in a locker room for a satellite interview, he pretends to interview himself. It's a goofy, amusing moment. I've watched presidential candidates in this familiar, tense setting and seen them anxious that time's wasting, irritated by a local anchor's gooey snap, bark at their staffs, or even, in one case, bolt from a Marriot ballroom. Off-camera, Kerry is surprisingly at ease. "I don't know who exercised in this locker room last," he jokes with his aides, "but they left a lot of themselves here." Alas, when the interview starts, he snaps back into that familiar wooden image.

<snip>

Because the Steve Rosenbaum wasn't given much access to the real strategists, he tries to make the subjects he gets sound more important than they are. When not doing that, the film tries to suggest that the confusion you're watching represents the chaos afflicting the Kerry campaign. It doesn't. It's garden-variety chaos that hits all campaigns.

The same endless series of switchbacks bedeviled the Bush campaign, which I spent most of my time covering at Time. Once when the president visited his campaign headquarters to buck up the troops, he and his entourage got lost in the warren of desks. The president blew up: "Is this how you want to be spending the president's time?" he snapped. "Lost and meandering within his campaign headquarters," reporters could have all written, if they'd seen the Bush campaign as undisciplined and disorganized at the time instead of hearing harrowing tales later. If Democrats are going to learn anything from this film or their loss in 2004, they will have to separate what was the normal confusion of a campaign from the confusion of this particular campaign.

http://www.slate.com/id/2127242/

[nvliberal]

1. It won't tell you why he lost

because he didn't.

It was yet another fraudulent election.

[texpatriot2004]

3. You are 100% right, election fraud is why that lying lunatic is in

the White House right now. It has nothing to do with campaigns or Kerry.

Kerry won, GET OVER IT! He won by at least 4.5 million if not more.

[sendero]

6. And what did he do about it?

Nothing as far as I can tell.

It's as if someone told you, "I'm going to break into your house and take everything Friday night at 11 PM", and you went fishing.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Except for the GLib lawsuit of course

after the fact. It seemed inconceivable to him. There were reports that his eyes tended to glaze over when folks talked about Diebold. They appeared to prepare for Gore-style suppression, only to be faced with a new and different fubar.

[sendero]

12. Ok..

.... but what does that say about his connectedness to reality?

Did he really think the thousands of folks warning him about this had all gone looney tunes?

I've heard that explanation before, and I can even believe it, but it doesn't improve my perception of Kerry's abilities one whit.

[LittleClarkie]

15. Well, I guess that would go for several DUers

and most of the Dems I meet in the real world as well. Not everyone here believes, and I have only ever met two people who were up on the fraud talk in my daily life. Even if the folks I meet think "something" happened, they don't see how Kerry could have done anything different.

Of the two, one is a peace activist, and buys into the "Kerry has a bazillion dollars left over and did nothing" routine, and the other didn't see what else Kerry could do, concession wise.

Thousands of folks do not even a majority make. I don't think that means he has a lesser grip on reality. He just wasn't a believer.

I would reckon that he is now though.

[sendero]

32. The thing is..

.. it is Kerry's job to know this stuff. He should have aides scanning the horizon for these sorts of problems.

There is no way he did not know of the allegations of election fraud, the fact that he chose not to believe them or take them seriously is on his head.

And please, change your name to LittleKerry, you are confusing everyone :)

[LittleClarkie]

34. Probably should be LittleUnityGal

as I've been seen defending Gore, Clark, Dean, Feingold and various other folks when the allegation in question is unfair. Equal opportunity, that me.

[sendero]

35. Fair enough..

.... LittleUnityGal it is!

[nvliberal]

21. Probably because Kerry, many other people,

thought election 2000 was a fluke, that rigged elections simply "couldn't happen here."

It's widely believed, even on a board like this one.

I don't think Kerry is so naive now.

[LittleClarkie]

22. I don't think he's so naive now either

So I agree with that. However, I still disagree with you as to what they prepared for.

I still think they were prepared for 2000, but were NOT prepared for 2004. They tried to be prepared for suppression. They were definitely prepared for recounts. They were not prepared for Diebolding. And whatever they thought they'd planned for suppression didn't work.

Even so, Kerry's strongest words have come out in regard to the suppression. He's involved in one fraud case in Ohio, but TWO suppression cases, one of which involves the League of Women Voters.

Nevertheless, I see on Kerry's site right now a section about voter rights, where he makes it very clear that one of his focuses is about antiquated machines and the partisans who have charge of them. I was quite happy to see that a few months back. He's also having folks sign up for Voter Action Teams, but we shall see what happens with those in the next election.

[IndyOp]

28. Score!!

:rofl: :loveya:

I was getting all pumped up to land on you hard for whatever stupid explanation you offered as to why Kerry lost -- and then you get straight to the point: he didn't.

Good job :patriot:

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. So it was just hype. A whole lot about nuthin.

[LittleClarkie]

7. Speculation from the Kerry group was they don't have a distributor

and needed to stir up controversy to get the art houses or somebody to pick up the film.

So with the word out that it was much to do about nothing, they'll probably have to go to DVD or something.

It's possible.

Does this explain why in the original Grove story, there was someone who wouldn't touch this filmmaker with a ten foot pole?

[NYCGirl]

8. Since it played at the NY TELEVISION Festival, it was not made for

theatrical distribution. It'll most likely play on Sundance or IFC.

[LittleClarkie]

9. Like, oops. Thanks for the info

Most of us ain't anywhere near NYC. I didn't get that it was television.

Eh well, their hype went pffft, it appears, even so.

[NYCGirl]

11. It might even show up on PBS, despite, or perhaps because of it's new

GOP leadership.

[ClintonTyree]

4. Well, there was this company that makes voting machines.....

Deebole....Drebolt....DIEBOLD, that's it. And this company, like ya' know, it's CEO said he was 'gonna deliver the state of Ohio to bush, whatever THAT means! And like, when some people pushed the Kerry image on the screen, it like really voted for bush! Or something like that, I don't know but I guess like the machines had this like BAD CODE and like I didn't know machines could GET colds, but like a lotta' people who voted for Kerry REALLY voted for bush I guess. At least that's what I read on some internets site called "DU", like ya' know? :shrug:

[blm]

5. Explanation? Try a documentary about electronic voting machines.

.

[zulchzulu]

13. HIllary rolling her eyes was a reaction to Chimpy saying "Got wood"

The fact that either Rosenbaum or whoever said Hillary was rolling her eyes at a comment Kerry made in one of the debates is of course A LIE. Surprise..surprise, surprise...

Hillary was reacting to when Chimpy mentioned how he owned a logging company (or whatever) and said "got wood".

I'm sure Rosenbaum will get lots of access with candidates in 2008..after all he turns out to be a turncoat buttbrain.

[LittleClarkie]

16. That might have come from Lloyd Grove

but he seemed to have a source. Then again, he might have been quoting Rosenbaum may have been trying to eke out some publicity for the thing.

[radio4progressives]

18. I was shouting at the top of my lungs at Kerry on my tv debating W.

I was shouting so loud that I hurt my throat and scared my neighbor.

I couldn't believe that i was screaming at my tv set - but Kerry blew it big time on MAJOR questions during these debates. Questions that were wonderful opportunities to press home the culture of corruption in this administration on domestic and foreign policy.

It isn't surprising that Hillary happened to roll her eyes on certain statements Kerry made in the debates.

Despite Kerry's assasine campaign blunders - Kerry actually won the 2004 and it was massive election fraud that flipped it for the Bush Crime Family once again.

Unfortunately we threw our support behind a candidate who would not, indeed refused to fight back and simply conceded.

Kerry will not win the next presidential nomination, indeed he will not get past the early caucus/primaries. I live in a very blue region of California which is increasingly becoming red vis a vis redistricing shannangans, and I speak to a signicant number of people who supported and voted for Kerry in 2004 who know all about the elections fraud, and experienced a profound sense of betrayal from Kerry on November 3rd, and simply want to put that person, and that campaign far behind them.

Those that still hold blind faith in Kerry will have a rude awakening come 2008.

[zulchzulu]

19. Hmmm...

We'll see about your assessments for 2008. It is an eternity. Let's focus on 2006 first.

As for Kerry's concession speech, you may not know that a concession speech is NOT legally binding, hence is fairly meaningless. And you may not know that the Kerry/Edwards legal team is still investigating the Ohio, Florida and other locations election results with John Conyers, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, among others...

You missed the point about HIllary rolling her eyes at Kerry during the debates. She was rolling her eyes at Bush, NOT Kerry.

Pay attention.

[karynnj]

20. I saw the first debate in a room filled with Democrats

We all expected Kerry to do well, but we were blown away by how good he was. I don't know where you think he missed points. Virtually all comments on the election conceed that the debates made the campaign competitive.

My faith in Kerry as a statesman and a true public servant will not change one iota if he is not the 2008 candidate. In fact, I think that Hillary is likely to be the candidate and will likely win, but I am totally unexcited by this possibility. I think that what Bush's years have done is shown how corrupt our government has become. The hardest thing is seeing that it is not just Bush but almost every President for decades. Hillary is basically a politician as usual and I really do not think that she would do what is necessary to change course on foreign policy. Kerry has been right on this issue ever since at the end of his 1971 speech he hoped that Vietnam could be the point at which America turned and the soldiers had helped in the turning. Even if he never becomes president, he will have been an honest, decent, moral man in a time period when the US lost its way.

[LittleClarkie]

30. From the reaction down at HQ, I think you're right

It was like seeing volunteers shot out of a cannon. We had to release yard signs early (they'd planned a blitz of sorts to get max impact, because they knew we didn't have as many as the Bushies) because people were wanting them.

Suddenly people saw a winner and reacted accordingly. Suddenly I couldn't get a seat in HQ like I'd been able to before. I ended up in some side office.

I wish that momentum would have started sooner, but folks had to see Kerry unfiltered by the press, I guess.

[OzarkDem]

40. Dem candidates are held to a much higher standard than R's

thanks to the corporate owned news media.

Gore and Kerry were both far superior to their opponents in debates, but they were penalized by the MSM spin because they didn't ooze charm or come on like talk show hosts. And they have to gain wide margins of support from voters to withstand corruption of the voting process.

The bar will always be higher for Dem candidates, period. Have to get used to it.

[LittleClarkie]

23. It is not blind faith. Some know him better than others is all

Same re: Clark, Gore, Dean, Kucinich, et al. From the outside, we each look like bots to each other, but I suspect that those who support one guy or another have just taken the time to get to know their guy or gal very, very well. It is not blind, I assure you.

And Hillary, the point was being made, was NOT seen rolling her eyes at Kerry in the film, but at Bush. It might not be surprising to you, but neither did it turn out to be true.

Or is truth not a concern when one has already made up one's mind?

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. I think you're being far too polite.

I wouldn't even acknowledge that asinine comment about blind Kerry worship - it's more BS from someone who, for whatever ulterior motives, aims to discredit him. Fact: Kerry won all three debates. Fact: Kerry won the election. Fact: Kerry is still involved in the Ohio lawsuits; if anyone possesses any irrefutable proof of election theft (admissible in a court of law, whose standards are generally higher than histrionic online message boards), PLEASE fax it to his office so he can present it as evidence.

Those are the facts. Everything else is just so much pissing into the wind.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. Gee, general consensus is that Kerry kicked ass in the debates

Dunno what YOU were watching, or smoking, for that matter.

This is your brain on drugs, folks :eyes:

[seabeyond]

27. wow, people say it wasnt hillary rolling eyes at kerry, and you go

on to promote the story. no agenda here.

[McCamy Taylor]

14. Why Kerry does not live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/index.htm

:mad:

[TayTay]

17. As to the question of why the 10,000 lawyers on the ground

didn't help, I read a report compiled by a Texas (!) legal assocaiton tht lited Dem sins in the election. Among the worst of these was the fact tht many lawyers mis-represented themselves as being able to respesent legal interests in states in which they were not admitted t the bar, didn't know the ins and outs of election law in that particular area and were, really, not qualified to lend legal assistance.

If we want to really fight this, we need to adopt better means of fighting. There are a lot of people who warned that the election was not right. However, in Ohio it was not that easy to just say that there was fraud. The Ohio government was totally controlled by the Republican party. Some of the problems were dealt with ahead of time and there was some success at combatting the problems (Blackwell wanted to throw out registrations that weren't on the legally madated paper width and so forth.) But the power to distribute voting machines was a Republican power and they used it to depress the Dem vote. (And you can't show in a chart the voters who didn't show up. It's proving a negative.)

The best way to fight this is to support the Ohio Reform movement that is sponsoring ballot initiatives that will make adifference. I also hope that Ohio goes Dem, as that would help to bring in clean elections. There was only so much KErry could do as a national candidate, the rest has to come from the state of Ohio.

[seabeyond]

31. thank you for reason tay tay. as much as i hate the theft and am

pissed, ...... reality. good analysis. i say and what was he to do nov 3. yell fraud, theft. he would have never have gotten away with that. he would have been destrpyed and he would not be effective in senate

[Vektor]

24. So they failed to mention Diebold's role in his "loss" then?

Bastards. :grr:

[zann725]

29. Why go for the obvious? If they had, obviously no film would be made.

REAL question is WHY are they picking on him NOW?

They already whooped his butt with rigged machines, and "edited" exit polls,and lies about voter disinfranchisement, and so-called documentaries like "Swift Boat Liars."

Why now? They THAT afraid...even yet...as the indictments shower down around them like an early winter blizzard? Me thinks they protesteth too much...at a curious time indeed.

[seabeyond]

33. they have done everything to kerry. what else are they going to do,

this. big deal. and he is a mouth now. he doesnt stay quiet about anything. what are they going ot do. kerry is has it the best. they have fried him and he still talks. and he is experienced enough now in their ways, that the sucker punch isnt going to hurt at all. or even surprise kerry

[LittleClarkie]

36. He's like a pair of pre-shrunk jeans that ain't getting any smaller

He's been pre-smeared. Been there, done that.

[seabeyond]

37. yep yep yep. i like how you say it

a favorite pair of jeans at that. i just like the man, what can i say. and he is certainly experienced now, as is gore

[Township75]

38. Is the movie even supposed to discuss why he "lost"?

I saw an interview with the director. He is a DNC member and voted for Kerry. He wanted to do a documentary on Kerry's campaign because he thought he would be doing a documentary on a campaign which would win the White House.

Evidently, the film shows a poorly run campaign. I have no idea how a well organized campaign should look since I have never worked in one...I imagane there is a lot of chaos in every campaign, regardless of how well it is managed.

Personally, I think a lot of people are getting worked-up over nothing concerning this. If it does show Kerry to have done a piss poor job, WTF does it matter now; it's not as if the movie are going to hurt his 2004 presidential chances now, and everyone will have forgotten this movie by 2008.

[elperromagico]

39. If Clinton had lost in 1992, "The War Room" would be a study

of a losing campaign, unable to get its act together, grasping at straws, beset by scandals and rumors of scandals, engaging in petty attacks.

But Clinton won. Therefore, "The War Room" has become a study in how a good campaign goes about winning an election.

The perspective is dictated entirely by the results.