rone | not bitter

As in 2000, the Democrats ran a watered-down campaign for a watered-down candidate, where they seemed to be unable to get a handle on how badly Bush has run the government. In my opinion, this election proves that people aren't going to vote against a candidate unless you give them someone to vote for. Kerry was always an uninspiring douche; Jon Stewart as much as admitted it when Tucker Carlson asked him, "Is Kerry the best [the Democrats] can do?" His response was a dodge, talking about the primaries process instead of replying, "Yes." Edwards or Dean, with their more aggressive demeanor, would've been better choices to defeat Bush, Edwards especially because he's from a red state (Clinton: AR; Carter: GA).

More crucially, i think the Democrats lost the election way back in 2002, when they were rolling over for the president in both the House and the Senate. How could they run against him in 2004 after doing exactly what he wanted them to do? "How could they know how badly things would turn?" you ask. How could they not? I'm not especially adept at politics, but i knew the "extra security" stuff would turn out to be inconsistently enforced; i knew Afghanistan would be abandoned; i knew Iraq would turn into a quagmire. How did i know? History. The unwillingness of the US government to work with other nations unless they were calling all the shots, and the rigidity of their attitude and their strategies were certain doom.

I've heard the arguments that the US is the best country in the world; in some cases, i even agree with them. But the attitude that the only world government we should accept is one in which we're king is anathema to me. Four more years of thumbing our noses at our neighbors because we're better than them makes me sad. And worst of all, our country will continue to suffer under the uncaring eye of the Bush administration and nobody will even notice because, hey, don't you know there's a war going on?

Sure, this is going to smack of piling on Kerry after a loss, of a post facto i-told-you-so. It ain't so, but of what i am guilty of is not speaking my concerns previously because i tried not to step on the feet of the optimist contingent, the folks who looked down on the doom-and-gloom, who wanted all un-Bushies to join together behind Kerry because, hey, he's not Bush! Guess what: Kerry sucked. It was yet another close election that should not have been close, not because i'm misunderestimating Bush, but because it's plain now, as it was four years ago, that he is a poor leader.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Thanks for saving me having to find the words for a lot of my gut feelings after last night. I'd forgotten about Stewart's whiff; I was more focused on how easily he gave up the moral high ground, and that non-sound-bite slipped by me.

I might disagree with you a little bit on the for/against distinction. I agree that the Democrats failed miserably in giving the voters someone to vote for, but I would claim it's because Kerry failed to set forth adequate reasons to choose him over Bush on two major issues: the war in Iraq and the state of the economy, and not because he was a weak mix of water and vinegar, as your comment might suggest.

Thanks again.

I'd say it's both. I mean, Kerry was really lionized near the election for his BCCI thing, and of course his stand against the war thirty years ago, but where has his courage been lately?

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<jluser=huaman>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

I'm not going to speak to who won or didn't, but I really agree that the democratic party needs to produce someone to vote for instead of trying to have someone to vote against.

On a slightly different tack. This is by far, regardless of the outcome, the most positive election I've ever experienced. <jluser=huaman> and I waited well over an hour with our 6 year old to vote. Everyone in line was at least quiet if not polite, and I think it was a really positive experience for our son. He voted with me, pushed the NEXT button[1] between voting screens, and has been very interested in the election results. I think it's much more important that he not be intimidated by the process, because well his opinions when the time comes are his; nevermind that I think he is currently a one issue voter[2].

I'm saddened that the young vote is only being reported at about 1/10, but I think with the greater voting numbers that actually does speak positive tones in that with the greater overall turnout.

[1] I'm sure this is not technically kosher, but anyone who disagrees with my methods can discuss it with their children. And kiss my ass.

[2] This also is his right when the time comes, but he needs to understand the system and be willing to put forth effort, which is much more important then what he votes for.

More crucially, i think the Democrats lost the election way back in 2002, when they were rolling over for the president in both the House and the Senate.

No, I think not. I was mad as hell then, but in retrospect I believe they probably did the clever thing; had they not given Bush all the rope he wanted, he wouldn't have been able to hang himself. Not that he did, but he came close. Had the Dems done anything to obstruct Bush's conduct of the war (even if it was only fanning public opposition), they'd have been sitting ducks for the charge that the present fiasco was their fault. I'm willing to assume the Dems saw three things: that Iraq was going to be invaded, no matter what they did; that it was going to be a quagmire; and that the sooner the invasion happened, the sooner Bush would land in trouble. So they did everything they could to make sure the responsibility for all the chaos fell on Bush, as early as possible.

Edwards and Dean both would have lost this election worse than Kerry did. Edwards would have been nailed as an inexperienced one-term legislator with no qualifications to be Commander in Chief, and Dean would've been labelled a whacko loose cannon. Kerry was the best available candidate of a mediocre lot.

That's not a "clever thing". Giving Bush rope is fine if he's going to hang himself with it quickly. But he used it to trip and whip the US and Iraq, and then he put the noose around his neck and winked. Sitting ducks? If they'd shown the intestinal fortitude back then to fight Bush, they'd've fought later against those false charges. You're willing to assume that the Democrats chose to let the country get fucked by the Bush administration just so that they wouldn't end up as a scapegoat — and yet, by acting as the Loyal Opposition, that's exactly where they ended up.

Frankly, your assessment is brutally cynical.

You've pretty much summed up my feelings, though I hadn't thought them out that clearly yet.

I think that I'll reflect a little more and maybe add something useful later. Thanks for getting some of this pre-sorted for me, though...

An interesting and insightful piece for me to read, thank you. I have been following this election with varied interest from afar - I'm a British citizen, not an American, and so I don't understand all of the issues and all of the culture. I've watched the BBC interviews with Joe Average Americans with some interest, and despite all of those I know doing everything the opposite of the typical British stereotyped view, almost all of those interviewed seemed to be unable to carry through the most basic critical thought. The fact that many people think that the current state of Iraq is a reason to vote for Bush (as appears to have been indicated by the opinion polls) is indicative of that for me. It's depressing, and it makes you wonder where the "liberal American media" that Fox so decries is hiding.

It ain't worth having. The Presidency, I mean.

Everyone with the character to be a worthwhile leader will have shagged someone they shouldn't and is probably still doing so. Everyone with a successful business career has some deal, or some associate-at-one-remove, that can be made to look like he's a criminal. Every lawyer worth his salt has taken on an unpopular case that would render him unelectable. Everyone who rises to prominence in American public life has well-funded enemies who will make it true, or make it stick, by whatever means.

So you're left with fools, drones, and insipid careful calculating men who are without exception skilful liars. Some of whom are front men for cabals of deeply cynical men who are everything and more that the candidates are routinely accused of being.

And who would want the attacks on your close family and their private lives?

It ain't worth having and nobody worthy of it would want to have it.

not bitter

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject