Question for William Pitt re: comment on early concession

[LittleClarkie]

It was suggested I pull out my question from another thread, and post it on its own thread, so here goes.

If you consider the concession to have been too soon and a terminal blunder, what do you think waiting would have changed?

Not a rhetorical question. What hypothetically might have changed?

I guess I don't understand how the campaign was going to get anything concrete fast enough to make a difference as far as changing the outcome was concerned. How long realistically could they have waited? What would the Republicans have done differently to fight K/E?

And if people like Madsen are correct, would it have been for naught if these are air votes that would have made a difference?
What would waiting have changed, now that we know pretty much what those people had to say? Would we have had enough evidence in that say, first week to do something different?

Or are we looking at more of a political move so that people would have felt the vote counted since many were still voting? I could have seen that at least, Kerry saying that we should wait for people to finish voting at least, and perhaps for the absentee ballots to be done.

Do you accept his given reason, that he just didn't want to see the country divided any more? Or do you see a different reason?
All I know right now is that I'm sitting here in tears again, feeling helpless and really depressed. It's like I'm reliving Nov. 3 reading this thread.

And I still like Kerry alot. I think he did what he thought was best, even if I'm not sure I agree with his decision. He's moving on, sometimes at the speed of light, fighting in his way. He looks to be keeping up an almost campaign pace. I'm glad he's still around here, there and everywhere.

I ask these questions because sometimes the criticism seems somewhat vague. I will see the words, "He should have fought" without any concrete answers as to how Kerry should have fought. Or that he should have waited before conceding without saying how long he should have waited and what that waiting would have accomplished.

And of course there are those who say that nothing short of getting Bush out of office now will be acceptable, without any realistic plan as to how that should be accomplished short of revolution that is not likely to happen given the current mood.

Hoping for an answer, or perhaps some good discussion. But I do hope Mr. Pitt in particular will respond as he is the one who inspired the question. I'm just having trouble reconciling on the one hand people I know who think Kerry did the only thing he could in conceding, and those who think that it was terrible folly. I must admit, in my daily life, I meet more of the former than the latter. Even among those who believe the fraud happened, most I speak to think Kerry did the only thing he could.

So for those who believe there was something else he could do, I'd like to hear both what he could have done, and realistically what it could have accomplished.