Can we put to bed this weird myth about John Kerry being a "good closer"? He's really a pretty lousy politician, and has only survived in his Senate races by being a liberal plant in the hothouse of Massachusetts. He couldn't survive out in the wild of the rest of the country.

The frightening thing is that Bush really was vulnerable this year, and the donkeys screwed up by picking one of the worst possible candidates, because they foolishly thought that Kerry's Vietnam record would somehow inoculate them against being soft on defense. In retrospect, I think that a Gephardt, or a Biden, or particularly a Lieberman (I might have even voted for him, despite the dreary prospect of having to listen to his whiny voice for four years) could have knocked him off.

At this point, I'm interested to see if he can be a "good loser". If it becomes clearer (I agree, its clear now, but some folks are slow learners) that he's lost, will he do the right thing and concede?

Or will he pump more money into the economy by filing lawsuits and paying legal salaries (as well as helping out local coffee shops by providing them with swarms of reporters as clients)?

Mmmm--Lieberman would've lost 10% or more as the doves went to Nader. He'd've had to get a lot of Reps to cross over while promising the same thing as Bush. Senator Rorschach might've been the Dems best bet for keeping their base together.

Senator Rorschach might've been the Dems best bet for keeping their base together.

Agreed.

Biden or Lieberman would have lost the Dean-iacs and therefore still lost to Bush. All things being equal, Switching horses in a war is damn hard to do.

Gay rights may well have made this election un-winnable for Kerry.