Let's recall the beginning of 2004. It was clear to much of the nation and to a good many politicians that President Bush was exceedingly wobbly. Consider:

1. He had made it abundantly apparent to most USAns that he was not _their_ president, but rather the president of big business and the rich. This was clear from his tax cuts, which he had eagerly pushed from the very beginning of his administration, first on the pretext of getting rid of the "problem" of a budget surplus, and later on the pretext of stimulating the economy. But his tax cuts were directed specifically toward the rich and toward big business; explicitly and publicly. He had stated to any ordinary American who could read and think: I am not for you, for your interests and concerns, I am for the Rich. And of course the economy stagnated for the average American throughout President Bush's term.

2. This attitude made itself apparent in his environmental policy. He cancelled Kyoto almost immediately, thus telling Americans and the world that he and his administration would not be concerned with global warming. He permitted air standards and water standards to lapse; he cared neither about lead in children nor mercury in adults. He urged forests to be cut down faster, and he allowed mountaintops to be sliced off and dumped into valleys where streams flowed in order to help coal-mining interests.

3. His Iraq policy. What must be said here that has not already been said? the rush to war; the deception about yellowcake from Africa and "mushroom clouds" over the US; the brouhaha about weapons of "Mass Destruction"; the alleged alliance of Saddam and Al Qaeda. And by January 2004 the absurd show on the "Abraham Lincoln", with its "Mission Accomplished" banner, was many months old, and the Iraqi insurgency was growing in virulence, as it continued to do throughout the year.

For the above three reasons, and many others, Bush seemed to be a very attractive antagonist to many politicians, and of course a bunch of Democrats rose to the challenge, from conservatives like Lieberman to liberals like Dean and Kucinich. Kerry, probably in the center of the ideological spectrum represented by the seven or eight candidates, won the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and was from then on the "front-runner", and was never again seriously challenged in his bid for the nomination. It seems that the Democrats were anxious to avoid an intra-party blood-letting in their desire to beat Bush; this was of course understandable, and was understood by the great mass of people for whom "ABB" -- Anybody But Bush -- was the slogan.

So why did Kerry lose? There have been as many explanations as there are pundits, and all the explanations I'm aware of have elements of truth in them. For Bush's victory was very narrow, and if a relatively few votes had changed in any number of regions or constituencies, the election would have swung the other way.

For instance, suppose that some of the substantial number of USAn who voted on the issue of "moral values" had been persuaded that waging aggressive war, and bombing civilian, and losing soldiers for nothing, were against any religion that the earth has ever known. This would surely have had an effect on the outcome.

Again, suppose that the Joe Sixpacks, and the Walmart workers, and in general the working poor in the US had had the tax cuts for the rich held up to them consistently and insistently. Had they learned that the percent of wealth returned to the rich was many times greater than the $300 or $600 rebates that they received, they would surely have voted in greater numbers for any Democrat who promised to reverse this giveaway.

It has been claimed Karl Rove ran a brilliant campaign. He certainly focussed his people and his candidate on a few basic issues; he kept his people, and his candidate, "on message". But the message wasn't that great; "stay the course", "he'll keep you safe", "support the commander-in-chief"; and of course the brilliant and duplicitous attacks on Kerry. An Atlantic Monthly article on Karl Rove points out that he has a great record of success by being always on the attack, and worrying not a bit about truth; by the time the truth comes to light the election is over. We saw this in the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry; the media caught on to this fairly quickly and tried to sweep up after this elephant, but it put Kerry on the defensive.

But it should be remarked that Rove knew his candidate, and in many ways performed in a dull and traditional way with him. Bush visited only the states in contention, as did Kerry, and Bush's campaign events were, for the most part, "by invitation only". Bush spoke only to his supporters. Which on the one hand was wise -- Bush does not do well with hostile or aggressive questions -- but on the other hand one must wonder: what is the point of a campaign that speaks only to the already convinced?

No, the reason why Bush won, and why the Democrats didn't win overwhelmingly, has got to lie with the Democratic candidate. Kerry, and the Democrats, ran a lousy campaign.

The main flaw: they took advantage of none of the Bush vulnerabilities sketched above. They didn't attack the war; they didn't attack the lies; they didn't attack the huge economic bias against the average USAn; they didn't attack the horrendous environmental giveaways. Too often they either ignored these issues, or went along with Bush and Republican policies.

Kerry was reactive all the way. He was _not_ a flip-flopper, he did _too_ support the War on Terrorism, he did _too_ support our troops in Iraq, he was _too_ a valiant warrior in Vietnam. Bush/Rove were on the other hand on the offensive all the way; Bush never mentioned his failures to protect the nation against 9/11, he never said, "I am not a liar", and the most he ever said about his Texas National Guard Service was that he was honorably discharged. He simply ignored the charges that others(not Kerry) threw at him. He talked about the things he wanted to talk about, to the audiences that he knew would give him big applause, and Kerry let him get away with it.

What if Kerry had said: the war is a hideous mistake, we are killing our troops and wasting our treasure and alienating the world, for n o t h i n g . And if asked: "Of course I'm sorry I voted for it; the Congress was misled like all the rest of us", and then gone back to _hammer_ Bush on the war. "Don't prate about moral values, Mr Bush, when you are killing our young men and women, not to mention thousands of innocent Iraqis".

What if Kerry had said: why talk about your moral values when you take from the poor and give to the rich? why these insane taxcuts? why do Republicans, who have claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, make a hash out of the finances of the government? "Fellow Americans, Mr Bush talks about tax cuts. But they are only for the wealthy. And they translate into tax increases for our children. When our government pays out now, for reckless irresponsible wars, and reckless irresponsible military-industrial expenditures, it should pay for it now. For our children will have to pay what we spend, plus the interest fees that Mr Bush is putting on the national credit card."

What if Kerry had stood at the Grand Canyon, showing the development there? what if Kerry had visited the same power plant that Bush visited earlier, and exposed the fact that it was pumping out more mercury than ever? what if Kerry had stood by the shore of the Chesapeake Bay, or showed the clearcuts devastating our National Forests? "My Fellow Americans, we must stop these give-aways. Our forefathers gave us wealth, we must not pass on plundered land and water to our children."

Kerry seems to have followed the DLC line: that populism is unpopular, and that Democratic success will come if the Democrats will only veer more to the Right. Clinton did this with very mediocre success in his two terms. He won the White House, but lost the Congress to the Republicans. Al Gore won -- yes, he did! -- by going "populist", appealing to the weak, to minorities, to the average American who is losing the struggle. The strategy that the DLC has persuaded the Democratic party to follow is not a winning strategy, as the Kerry campaign has once again demonstrated.

Bottom line: Bush was weak, Kerry should have wiped the floor with him. But he didn't, and that exposes the fundamental weakness of the recent Democratic party strategy.

I don't understand the emphasis on physical campaigning in "battleground states", although I do understand running ads in these states. Let us suppose that each candidate saw 10,000 people in the 100 days before November 2. This means that each saw 1,000,000 people, a fraction of those who saw them every evening on TV. Bush especially preached only to the choir, as we've noted above.

Surely it would be more effective for each candidate to visit sites that would resonate with his message. I have made suggestions above about some sites that Kerry should have visited. I would have urged him to visit Texas, to campaign against DeLay in DeLay's home district. I would have urged him to visit South Dakota, to help poor Senator Daschle. I would have urged him to visit Maine, to talk about the campaign finance efforts there, and even to say a few words of praise for the two lady Senators from Maine, both moderate Republicans.

To get on national TV every evening, with an attack message, would seem to be the most effective use of the candidate's time. Both candidates seemed to be campaigning the way Harry Truman did back in the old days: whistle stops, but using airplanes. Decades ago Marshall McLuhan talked of the efficacy of TV, of the Global Village. But campaigns don't pay attention. Any campaign should measure its success by seeing its candidate talk every evening to the millions of Americans who watch the evening news.