The day(s) after....

Oh man.. What an .... Interesting situation this past Tuesday.. I am also in a little bit of disbelief this morning.. No one likes their horse coming in second - in a two horse contest, but we'll have to try and make do with what we have, ya' know??

I don't have to describe how I'm feeling this morning, because any other Democrat or Liberal probably feels the same way.. And while we can't really change how people felt on November 1st, we're living in reality November 4th: we have the same President as we have had for the last 4 years.. Yes, that stirs a lot of emotions inside and while I'm trying to process exactly what happened..

While I'm going to avoid much of the conspiracy talk that I've been hearing from Air America and other places, I'm finding some oddities about what the Democrats have been thinking since earlier in the year.. I won't say that I've come to any short conclusion, but I will say that unlike the 2000 election, Bush didn't steal this one.. Furthermore, I believe that it was the DNC themselves that crippled the election for John Kerry..

I found an interesting plea this morning while surfing around (thanks to Christopher who had it in his blog: Get Terry out, Howard Dean in..

What struck me about this article is the fact that there was a LOT of behind-the-scenes action throughout the democrat primaries.. Howard Dean garnered so much support - that was something that baffled me the most: why wasn't he the leading candidate for the Presidency??

While I want to blame the Democrats in general for what happened, I think the list of people to blame is much shorter than that.. Namely starting off with McAuliffe and working your way down the ladder after that..

I've long since maintained that Kerry was not the best choice for the Democrats.. What is troubling to ponder is whether or not Kerry was destined to go this far or do as well as he did.. When one looks at how the Kerry campaign was run, they didn't go out of their way to lambaste Bush as much as what Karl Rove was doing to the democrat hopeful.. If you take a look at the attacks that were coming at Kerry - there was virtually none that were being slung back..

I kept begging Kerry "c'mon boy, get in there!!"

Now one of two things happened.. 1.) The press disavowed anything coming from Kerry or 2.) Kerry's staff floundered in the wake of what Karl Rove's machine was doing.. Bottom line, it made Kerry look weak.. And it's quite possible that we were seeing the true Kerry - however, after watching Diary of a Political Tourist I think I got a glimpse into how Kerry actually is.. The press portrayed him as a stiff, starch shirt that basically drums out the same speech over and over..

Yet when you watch the HBO documentary, especially in the end, I saw a man who really does have warmth, compassion, and the type of statesman that could carry himself.. At that point, I knew that Kerry would do okay..

Except he didn't.. His campaign was focused on the message and ignored the mud-slinging that was going on.. Kerry's approach was mild more than anything.. Finally - towards the end - Kerry started attacking the President more (or at least that was what was being reported in the press..)

Which brings up an interesting point: the press wants to sell newspapers, commercial spots, etc.. It's in their ADVANTAGE to make this as close a race as possible - more subscriptions, more viewing, etc.. Were we victims of a press that was trying to enhance their bottom line, more than reporting accurately and decisively?? Is this why Bush was never challenged on his views and the inepititude his exhibits anytime anyone asks him a question when his "i-pod transceiver" isn't working??

I digress..

Back to Kerry, the DNC and the election.....

Which brings me back to the question: "Why Kerry??" With the initial surge of Howard Dean in the early going, it only seemed realistic that his base was one of the stronger ones out there.. This fact is well documented and observed across the spectrum.. But then some of the wheels came off and the "oo-yeah" screaming chant seemed to derail Dean once and for all.. C'mon, Bush forgets Poland and is reading "My Pet Goat"; what's worse?? No.. Just because you have one excited little utterance shouldn't prevent you from running in a major Presidential race.. But what happened?? Wasn't the DNC interested in getting back the Presidency?? Why was all of this floundering going on??

Maybe there are great powers at the helm of the DNC which allowed this to happen.. Let's think back to the Clinton years.. It's well-documented that the elections in 1992 stirred up the DNC.. The inner workings run by McAuliffe, the Clintons and others were well documented.. McAuliffe would eventually become the DNC chair and the Clintons remained in the picture - even though they are in New York..

Afterall, there's been a great deal of talk in the early part of 2004 suggested that Hillary Clinton was thinking about running for the Presidency.. She opted not to this time and yet she seems poised to jump at the possibility of 2008.. What scared her off in 2004 is something of a mystery.. On one hand, she may not be ready to take the reigns.. On the other, she could've been criticized for quitting her New York senatorship solely on the basis of her own personal gain for the White House.. Someone, somewhere along the line, thought the timing was not right..

But I figure the DNC didn't stop there.. Whether it was McAuliffe or someone else along the way - there was a hatched plan to introduce Hillary as a contender for the 2008 elections.. That plan consisted of picking a decent candidate that may do well enough to motivate the masses, but won't win completely.. Simply put: A Kerry victory would've meant a virtual lock-down for Hillary's chances in 2008 because in the majority of cases, the incumbent will run again for their successive terms..

What I'm not sure the DNC counted on was the fact that there would be an incredible insurgency that wanted Bush out of office.. When we look at what Bush was doing in the White House, a lot of people were shaking their heads.. This was a GOLDEN TIME for the DNC to take back the White House.. Bush's approval numbers were falling, the war is not going well, his economic plans were causing more pain and grief than were helping: HOW COULD ANYONE SCREW THIS UP??

Find a way - and the DNC did..

There was serious momentum in favor of getting Bush out of the White House, but the DNC did very little to encourage that.. Michael Moore did everything he could to get the attention of people.. Celebrities and other famous folks were coming out against Bush at every turn.. There was a complete concerted effort to get Bush out of office.. Instead of riding the wave and letting Dean command and guide the party - they chose Kerry, a life-long senator who from his appearances is not the strongest candidate to bring forth.. At least his portrayal through the press is that he's weak or ambivalent on many issues.. Kerry is very articulate which got twisted and distorted into a lot of "double talk" and now the infamous: "flip-flop" machine.. Karl Rove ran a masterful campaign against Kerry.. Mary Beth Cahill was no match for the attacks and war the Republicans were bringing to the table.. The Republicans knew they could lose it and they were hungrier than the DNC to win it again this year..

So, again: "why??"

If the braintrust of the DNC sent Kerry out so that they can secure a bid for 2008, I'll add that it's the single most disappointing factor to come from all of this.. In an election that had so much at stake, the DNC failed miserably.. Losing Daschele was one thing, losing so many seats in the Senate and the House is one thing, but giving the Republicans a free pass to determine the complexion of the Supreme Court is simply inexcusable..

Clearly the leadership of the DNC needs to be examined.. Clearly when we abandon the focus of what Democrats stand for, needs to be examined.. When you have the exit polls revealing that a HEALTHY segment of the Democrat party voted in FAVOR of Bush -- that needs to be seriously examined..

This was the BEST opportunity to secure the White House: an inconsistent, myopic, under-educated President that had scores of issues with his first 4-year term and the Democrat party couldn't do squat to unseat him from the Presidency..

There will be no blaming Nader..

There will be no Florida or Ohio to blame..

There will be no challenge for voter fraud..

Nothing..

I put the blame squarely on the DNC.. Just as they failed to put Gore in the White House, they should've, could've, would've learned in 4 years how to do it "right," but they didn't..

Bush believes he now has the mandate of the people - which I strongly disagree with - but who can argue with the man who scored a 3 mil advantage over his competition??

In the land of the "lesser of two evils," clearly America felt it was best to stick with the evil they have grown accustomed to.. When your candidate does not emerge as a compelling, decisive difference to the incumbent President - it's going to be difficult to convince America that a new direction is warranted..

I won't say the best man won because the best man was never on the ticket.. For those pundits who love to say that Bush is the way of the future, I urge you to keep thinking that way when the next plane hits the building in your hometown, or when your son/daughter is called up to fight on behalf of "freedom," or when your neighbors are evicted because they have no job due the fact their job just went to India, or the debt which will be handed down to your children, and their children..

The world is not safer..
The nation is not better off..

What we have is a failure to communicate: to get the *right* person in the office, regardless if they are Republican or Democrat.. Continuing down this precarious path only insures that we're in for another rough 4 years.. If the Democrats really want to do something about this, they better start looking at McAuliffe - and start doing something about it..

In the words of Wil Wheaton:

"It's not over
It's just beginning"