- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I'm with numerous other posters who point out that the 2004 race should never have been so close. Bush was clearly a total disaster as president by then, and that case should have been made more strongly by the dems. It never was.
The Kerry campaign made numerous crucial errors of both omission and commission, and one of them was not accounting for the sure knowledge that the GOP was going to do everything possible to slant the vote in the battleground states.
the GOP plays dirty. Everyone knows that. They're PROUD of it. the Dems should have accounted for that in their planning, but they didn't.
Kerry was a poor candidate, but he should have won in a walk, and he probably would have, if he'd run a smart campaign. Instead, he ran a stupid campaign, and still just barely lost.
As someone else said, that speaks volumes. Just a little smarter campaign...and we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be talking about single-payer health care.. or real preparations for Peak-Oil.
Of course, if Willy'd kept his trouser-snake in his pants, Bush never would have won in 2000...you want to blame one person for Gore's loss, besides Gore himself and his advisors, blame Clinton. I loved the man, myself, but, jesus, how stupid can you be? Bill keeps it in his pants, or is at least a little smarter about where he puts it, and Gore wins going away in 2000.
