No, a bland campaign, triangulation, a failure to take on Republican election tricks, and not inspiring 50% of eligible voters to even go to vote is what got G.W. Bush in the first place. Just remember who was Al Gore's vice. Al Gore should have won by a landslide, and had Nader not ran, most Nader voters would have joined that 50% sitting at home anyway.

But if the past six years haven't convinced everyone that there is a crucial difference between Bush Republicans and Democrats, I don't know what it would take.

While many who reject both major parties have claimed lack of difference, what matters is another thing: has the Dems' difference the potential to bring about significant positive change? If Dems in power mean only intermittent delays in the Republoscum push to the right (as in the Clinton era), iut's not worth much, if it means ineptness allowing the Repubs to regroup and prepare for a real landslide next time (as would have happened if Kerry wins and 'owns' Iraq), it may be even worse.

However, a lot of the Dems elected yesterday are a new generation. Although idiots like Rahm are there to meddle, and many are too centrist to support significant reforms, I'd hope that thery would be willing to do things differently. One prerequisite is for the base to push them on.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

Al Gore lost the 2000 election all by himself. He should have won it with half his brain tied to his back and ran poorly, and debated even worse.

The Al Gore we see now didn't even materialise until after 2002, possibly until 2004, and had today's Gore run in 2000 he would have definitely put on a spirited show, but he would have been tagged as radical and unelectable even by his own party. Much more centrist Democrats were called unelectable in 2004, after all.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides