On getting tough

[ginnyinWI]

Daughter #2 came home from college with a stack of Mother Jones magazines, and I was reading this article http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/11/paul_hackett.html , about Paul Hackett and his appeal. It describes how he talked back to a Repub heckler, as an example of how a Democrat can appeal to Repub voters. It gave me something to think about.

You know how tough * talked during the campaign. Didn't matter if it was all lies and surface bravado--it won the respect of that type of blue-collar voter who wants a tough leader in these uncertain times. So I suppose many of them voted for * because of it--because he was unequivocal--"strong and wrong" as Kerry said.

Do you think this is what the party needs? Or will it alienate too many in the center? What I'm beginning to think is that running to the center too much is the way the message gets muddled and weakened. People want a clear, tough stand now, post 9/11. Clinton pulled it off, but I wonder if he would have been elected running that way in '04.

I know I wanted to see Kerry hit * harder all through the campaign, not just at the end. I don't think that going negative is so bad, given these times. It really helped Kerry to win the nomination in the first place--to hit hard at *. And now, we have to realize that we need Repub voters to cross over, and that just getting out our own lefties to vote is not enough! Anyway, the far left also loves red meat when it can get it. It's been all about not alienating the center--those moderates who are so fickle--and I don't know if that is a good enough strategy anymore.

What do you think?