Peter Miesel of Boulder has the following to say regarding the two most recent elections, why some of us voted for Bush, etc. His insights are worth sharing:

"Probably one of the reasons Gore lost wasn't the boasting thing (he did

after all claim to be the inspiration for the novel 'Love Story'), it was

that Gore ran a horrifically counterintuitive campaign. Who exactly told

Gore that the key to capitalizing on Clinton's superb economic record

was to run a populist campaign vilifying the very people who benefited

from the 90's boom? Not to mention running a "people vs. the powerful"

mantra, when he was, in fact, the powerful. That was the opening that Bush

needed to get his campaign back on track. Gore's probably lucky he lost;

after 9/11 he wouldn't have been able to avoid the 'just what were you

guys doing about Al Qaida?' questions, and would have been massacred in

the off-year elections. Without 9/11 being hooked on him, Gore can now

freely wear the mantle as our new Earth God.

"Kerry always struck me as a Dole type, wanting to be president because he felt that he was owed the office. He ran a very mushy campaign that lacked a real unifying theme.

"Truthfully, I think Obama is the only way to go, because is it really

healthy to have a democracy where a Bush or a Clinton is in the White

House for 32 consecutive years? Not to mention electing Hillary because

of nostalgia for Bill (like electing W because of nostalgia for Reagan)

is a recipe for complete disaster.

"What's amusing me right now is a group called Recreate 68 is making a

lot of noise about the upcoming Democratic convention in Denver in 08.

Considering Chicago 68 arguably got Nixon elected, just who would be

Nixon in this dynamic? And does that mean Hillary is Hubert Humphrey (a

coldish, ultra-serious liberal who equivocates on the war)?"

For the curios, here is the recreate 68 website:

http://recreate68.org/