wonderful. thank you for sharing.
natalie | Homepage | 10.07.05 - 5:46 pm | #

Interesting article, and I think he's totally right. You probably do not agree, but Kerry should have won in 2004 - he had 48% just as an anti-Bush vote. He only needed to win over 2-3%, and he was unable to do it, even though Bush was rather vulnerable. That's a campaign problem. I have no problem criticizing Dems when it needs to be done, and I think the leadership just plain blew it in 2004. Hopefully we'll get ourselves together for 2006 - if Republicans remain as vulnerable as they are right now and Dems still cannot make gains, some serious soul (and leadership) searching would be in order.
Mike McKain | 10.07.05 - 11:13 pm | #

I would not say that Kerry should have won, or even that he could have won. I will say that Bush was a weak incumbent in 2004, and the Dems (thankfully) blew any shot of winning when Kerry got the nomination.
Ryan S. | Homepage | 10.07.05 - 11:57 pm | #

No,

The Dems would have blown any shot of winning had Howard Dean won the nomination. Kerry was the best candidate until Bush's "flip-flop" spin machine (which, you must admit, was great talking points BS jumped on by the "liberal" media) took flight. I still despised Kerry, but he was probably the best out of the original nine. He and Wes Clark.
Mike M. | Homepage | 10.08.05 - 7:54 am | #

Oh yeah, any legislator could probably be accused of flip-flooping. Bush ran an excellent campiagn.

Wes Clark was the only of the original 10 who ever worried me. Then he started to hang out with Michael Moore.
Ryan S. | Homepage | 10.08.05 - 4:42 pm | #