> I mean, we have crazy loons in the White House, a major left presence
> in the blogosphere, protests agoinst Bush all over the place, an
> energized Democratic Party and the best we can come up is Kerry?
"What do you mean 'we,' white man?" as Tonto reputedly said to the Lone Ranger. <g>
I'm not clear what happened during the primary season -- it all seemed to go by in a blur -- but from what I can tell, the other candidates self-destructed for one reason or another, and Kerry was left. Once he began to get a bit ahead, everybody decided to go with him. I don't blame the DLC, I blame the rather strange, addled Democratic primary voters (don't look at me, I'm registered independent).
All of the factors you mention have no relationship to the Democratic primary process; the bloggers don't nominate candidates, or have any great influence on the voters (how many voters read the blogs?). Unfortunately there haven't been protests against Bush "all over the place" -- they have been very few and far between, which should satisfy those who believe that protests are useless anyway. The Democratic primary voters did in fact care about getting the "crazy loons" out of the White House, but in their infinite wisdom they decided that Kerry was the most "electable" candidate. (And he may still be, though I would prefer that they open up the convention and get a better campaigner, such as Edwards.)
I like Kucinich a lot, especially because he is so unconventional, but anyone who thinks he could have had a serious shot at winning against Bush needs a head examination. And after all, that's what Democrats care about -- winning, not making a political fashion statement.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil. Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
-- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.