Wizblog

Well, I'm at least glad Bush didn't decide to give an acceptance speech before Kerry conceded, which I heard that he planned to do before his advisors advised him not to. That would of only underscored the arrogance that 55 million Americans recognize and despise is the President and would have only further divided this country.

Additionally, I don't know why there was such an uproar for Kerry deciding to wait until the votes were actually counted. I understand that with the atmosphere and history of litigation, there was a hope from both sides that that would not happen again. But, is it Kerry's fault that Ohio decided not to even consider provisional ballots until 10 days after the election?

Regardless of my disappointment of the outcome, I'm glad there was a significant increase in voter turnout, and that there seemed to be an increased interest and grass roots effort from both sides. I hope that trend only continues in the future. And again, I'm impressed that you took the initiative to be involved as a poll-watcher as well as a blogger.

I am quite glad that this whole ordeal is over for a little while and that all my commercials return to those selling unnecessary medications and automobiles. And my hope that we now only have four more years of Bush is quickly crushed by the stirring possibility that a certain Senator from New York is about to get a tap on the shoulder . . .

Now . . . let's see some blogs about Ohio sports!

So, all 55 million people who voted for Kerry "despise" the "arrogance" in this President? Quite a leap. Think maybe some of them just preferred Kerry as a candidate for President?

I thought his decision to concede sooner instead of later was wise and honorable, (instead of taking Edwards advice and throwing into action the 3000 lawyers that the Kerry team had in Ohio.) His people told him that he had no realistic chance to win. That's what made up his mind. That and a 3.5 million vote deficit in the popular vote...not quite 2000, eh?

I was just amused, as I said, by the spin in the headline. Bush's victory did not depend on when, or if, Kerry conceded. If Kerry had crawled down a rathole Tuesday night and not emerged for four years, George Bush would still be inaugurated on January 20, 2005. That was my only point.

I'll get on that sports thing.

"stirring?"

Well, I just saw Guiliani on late night something-or-other, and he was all but outraged that Kerry decided to go to bed and wait until the next day. There were 250,000 votes out in Ohio with an additional 100,000 provisional ballots, and Bush was only up by 150,000. The way the percentages were going, it was definitely a long shot. Once the actual math (not the predicted math) adds up, I've got no problem with reality. I just felt it was more vital to let the democracy take it's course this election than for anyone to jump the gun, so to speak.

I suppose Guiliani just wanted to get a head start on 2008. Seriously, though. Can you even imagine. Guiliani v. Clinton, 2008. Talk about a nation divided.

I'll take door #3.

I'd bet on Rudy to carry New York. And that might be all it would take. What red state could she carry?

Can Hillary really garner enough support to even win the Democratic nomination? Obviously the war chest would be formidable, but I'm not sure she could pass herself off as mainstream enough to win the support of the party, much less the nation. Isn't that the main reason the DNC was uncomfortable with Dean, even when he was the frontrunner? They can't be thinking that the way to win more "red" states is to run a candidate who's even MORE liberal.

Oh . . . Rudy would definitely carry New York. New York owes it to him.

Who else will run for the Dem nomination (and please don't say Kucinich or Sharpton)? Hillary, Edwards?, Dean?, the guy from New Mexico? (is it Richardson?) . . .