Dave, I totally agree with you that Kerry was already quite far to the left. I guess what I was trying to say is that when moderate candidates like Joe Lieberman were rejected in favor of someone like Kerry speaks volumes about the direction of the Democrats. I guess you could say that Kerry was chosen was because the party was already far off to the left.

Man does it piss me off when Liberals claim that they, and they alone, won civil rights. Even Andrew Young once admitted that "the unsung heroes of the movement are the Republican judges all over the south." Republicans like Eisenhower sent troops to enforce order while Democrats like George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door. Former KKK Kleagle "sheets" Byrd opposed civil rights legislation, and was a part of the REAL opposing force to civil rights: the Dixicrats! But that doesn't fit the mythology of the Left. What the Democrats really DID DO was to pimp a popular cause and take it to such extremes that it morphed into the monster we have today, government sponsored and enforced racism against white people. For that they really do deserve all the credit.

Yup-- my point exactly.

But, one more caveat-- if the Democratic Party had *really* moved as far to the Left as CW assumes, Howard Dean would've grabbed the nod.

Then again, Dean kinda killed his own chances with the howling.

What really did Kerry in was his failure to "introduce himself" to Americans who had no idea who he was, and his subsequent failure to reinvent himself once the flip-flopping liberal label stuck.

Whether or not Kerry could've possibly avoided either outcome is another question.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

They walk an impossible highwire--trying to keep the moonbats writing checks without scaring the Moms and union meatheads.

Some of us remember how Reagan was going to destroy the country and how that turned out. The same thing's likely to happen here. Once it turns out Bush is not the reincarnation of Ba-al or Himmler the moonbats'll lose another few percent of the middle they seek to decieve. Which is great.

It really wasn't that Kerry was 'left',or 'pseudo-centre';it was more that Kerry was weak, vacillating,and opportunistic.
Kerry lost on NATIONAL SECURITY.Not on abortion,not on health care,not on MORALS.He lost because many,many,people just 'knew'he was not the man(nor did he have a reliable Party behind him)to defend the nation.
All the Democrats save Lieberman suffered from the same problem.In the end the only thing that made it close was the ABB vote.In 2008,if security remains job#1,the results will be much worse for what remains of the Democratic Coalition.

They also energized the mainstream people who saw all the protestors and crazy antics and said to themselves, "I sure as Hell don't want THOSE assholes to win."

By saying that Kerry blew it assumes that he SHOULD have won. Is that what you are saying?

If that is the case, then you and I were looking for the same candidate -ABB as long as ABB was not WtB(worse than Bush.) I concluded JK was not WtB, you concluded he was.

If Bush was the right man all along, if he was YOUR man for the job, then the Dem's did nothing wrong. It was just an unwinable election. That would be like saying what the '86 Pats did wrong against the Bears, right? I mean, Bush was so strong, so right for the country, who could possibly step up and beat him?

Maybe if John Kerry had done the Superbowl Shuffle he would have done better...

But Ranger, think about all the spectacular flubs Kerry made. Come on, now, they helped.

-I remember in particular during debate time-- "Mary Cheney is a Lesbian"

-Showing the common man that he can reluctantly force-feed himself three bites of a Wendy's meal.

-Exploiting the memory of Vietnam- as if people want to fucking go back there

-Failing to keep Teresa sedated and quiet.

I'm sure you can think of like 25 more stupid pet tricks he did.
Somebody should put together a highlights tape.

Ranger--

First, it's nice to see ya over here at my vacation home. Please don't track any mud onto the carpet.

Second, c'mon, the 1986 Pats never had a chance. Remember, I can rub that in all I want to-- you've got one more ring than I do in your lifetime (and possibly another one quite soon).

As for Kerry, look: I view most elections, particularly at the national level, beginning from a level playing field.

Start off at the beginning of any campaign from 1988 to 2004, and to me, nearly every election appears to be a toss-up.

While some candidates are weaker than others-- Dukakis and Dole come to mind-- even they wasted good opportunities in hindsight to win the election.

Now, I'm just talking politics here, not whether Bush or Kerry were better from a policy standpoint. You and I are both aware that, despite personal protestations to the contrary, millions of Americans never get much politics beyond Jay Leno or the Daily Show. Subtracting the diehard Righties and Lefties, there is still a great big middle in play in each election.

My question is, how much of that middle was really in play? We all hear the talk about Red vs. Blue voters, but is there actually some underlying movements in favor of one candidate or another?

Some folks like to think the country has grown more conservative in recent years (or, conversely, more conservatives have grown in the country). The polling data seems to support that trend.

However, how influential is that streak? Was it and it alone enough to overcome ABB syndrome, which could have normally carried the day?

Or, were we really just talking about as little as, say, 5 percentage points in play on election day?

The trouble is, so many morons out there claim they're "undecided" when they're really not, so it only appears that the electorate as a whole is undecided come election day.

So, which is it? Are we split right down the middle, Red vs. Blue, or are we one great mass of undecided voters? We can't be both, or at least we can't be both in the percentages CNN or Time Mag would have us believe.

I tend to believe we really aren't that undecided. In that case Kerry's campaign strategy became *vitally* important, because he had to sway a very small number of people to come over to his side.

And, the tyranny of small margins means small things can sway them: dumb gaffes, bad hair days, lousy convention speeches, etc. All that's left is for Al Pacino to give his "game of inches" speech.

I'm just trying to understand a confusing dynamic by confusing the issue even more, that's all.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

fywbxvnkometwgrwwtwjjuofmejiscurotpbpxt
link http://glayhc.aqsfrr.com