Reply #64: Obvious, yes, but an important point

[RevolutionStartsNow]

I think we all realized at some point after Kerry became the nominee that we had a very good chance to win because * was such a horrible leader, a terrible debater and public speaker, a proven liar who hadn't even won the first time.

I don't care who the candidate was, I just couldn't fathom how more people would vote for * in 2004 than in 2000. How could he GAIN any votes, with his abysmal record and his illegal war and his inability to admit any of his own mistakes? This thought was my constant comfort.

In time, I learned to respect and admire John Kerry, and I believe he would have been a tremendous president. Dean would've been even better.

But whatever defeated Kerry would have also defeated Dean, or Edwards, or whomever. Whether it was fraud or other Rove dirty tricks, or the media, or the fundies, or the sheer inability of the American voter to see the truth in front of them (I believe it was likely a combination of these things), any of our candidates would have lost.

I hope we figure out how to counter this next time.