not bitter

[rone]

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.

Comments

[doctroid.livejournal.com]

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.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

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.