George W. Bush is so horrid that we must do all we can to make sure that we squash any challenger to the left of the wretched Democratic nominee and ensure Bush's removal and the Democrat's election.
If the wretched Democrat wins, activists who helped to elect him should turn out in massive numbers to protest the said Democrat's inauguration, but if the wretched Democrat loses and loses worse than the previous wretched Democrat who ran in 2000, activists who opposed Bush's re-selection have no reason to protest, because the horrid Bush won the popular vote fair and square?
Does that make sense to you? -- Yoshie
Why can't _you_ get it straight? Protesting Kerry would have been a meaningful way of trying to drag him toward decency on the Middle East. Protesting Bush is a gesture with no conceivable impact other than making the left look crazy. That latter thing is bad, though you apparently can't see that. Why?