Reply #73: Willing to work with the other side and once questioned affirmative action [View All]

[LittleClarkie]

He signed Balanced Budget amendments both when they were brought up from the left and the right.

And he was the saner candidate. The one who was willing to think things through and pick the right course, even if that meant working with a Republican once in a while to do it. So yeah, he probably could argue that point.

Nevertheless, any candidate on either side is going to try to appear more moderate than they are when they're trying to get elected. It's either that or lose like McGovern. But what's the difference when a centrist like Clinton will be labeled a lefty anyway by the other side.

As for firing campaign staff, you ask a question rather than give facts. The reality is different than your rhetorical question would imply. The fact is that he was losing in the primaries. So he fired his campaign staff and brought in new ones. Then he started to win in the primaries. Kept that same staff, and brought in others as needed when things began to flag. Would you rather Bush's style of "full steam ahead regardless"?

Recovering or no, you sound like you about half swallowed the talking points anyway. I grant you, you have to pay attention to the dude, but he was rather consistent if you took him as a whole, and not soundbite by soundbite.

One of my favorite resources for the Iraq War, as an example, is www.kerryoniraqwar.com, which is still operational as it was in the campaign. They look at the guy as a whole, and see that he was both consistent and right, on that issue at least.

I just wish he'd have gotten pissed off sooner. He talks in short sentences then.