If you read that previous post in the context of previous discussions I have had about the Pantalone campaign with Stockholm you will see that he more or less blames defeat on Pantalone because he was a weak candidate. In that context I am asking if Jack brought embarrassment to the party by endorsing a weak (sic) candidate.
As well, Stockholm asserts that the party (and Jack) was fully behind their man. In that case Hebert's comments have at least some merit, since defeat is shared by Pantalone and the party together, and Jack as his sponsor. The organization was either incapable of running a strong campaign, or incapable of producing a talented candidate from within its ranks. Or both! So you are right, we can not have this argument both ways, your observation is correct, this is why I am asking Stockholm these questions.