You know, I wish I could argue differently, but in the long run, it may have been better for the Dems that Kerry lost. It's difficult for a party to have control over all branches, especially when its such a slim majority; they can't really blame anyone but themselves. Kerry would have had a very tough time getting anything done with the Congress we have now.
If it makes you feel better, though, the Supreme Court nomination is huge and long term. No matter what, Bush will get a Conservative of some sort through, and if Stevens can't hold on for three more years, the Conservatives will have a solid hold on it for quite some time. Bush will probably get at least two, maybe three appointments that otherwise Kerry would have had. Hmm, maybe I'll flip flop and say this wasn't so good for Dems afterall. Actually, writing this is just kind of depressing me, but hey, maybe its making you feel better. Is it 2008 yet??
Yeah, but the Supreme Court Noms could all turn out to be Souters uin the end. So it is almost a toss up. 2008 is make or break for the DNC, however. Not in terms of winning, per se, but giving a good show, as opposed to 2000 and 2004, which (though I knew this all along, but I am sure most Dems recogize this by now), piss-poor showing.
A candidate has to sell the ideas, and not vice-versa.
Supreme Court nominations are always a crapshoot but if it's Clinton vs. McCain in 2008 we're all screwed.
or Clinton v. Condi...
Commenting by HaloScan
