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

[lusercop.livejournal.com]

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.