I began following Obama after his Keynote at the Democratic convention back in ‘04. Something stirred and I began strongly tipping him for ‘08 in March ‘06.

In the post I also sighed at the polarising nature of US politics.

As I said ::

The current level of American political division is destroying any collective will to tackle the great problems facing the union. Globalisation, fiscal concerns, and the threat of international terrorism have knocked the US for six, yet American politicians are unwilling to drop the electioneering for a second to join arms in solidarity.

The post-Newt GOP is indeed a truly foul organisation, which is shame as the old party of Barry Goldwater – and some of the more Libertarian minded Republicans today, cannot be compared to the likes you mentioned (I notice you missed Sean Hannity, who’s a complete moron).

The Dems are a long way from perfect. Much of America’s economic woes can be traced to the way the Democratic congress conducted its business pre-Newt. Union power-brokers had waaaaay too much power, which is evident in the huge financial woes at Ford and GM, among others.

However, in ‘08 there really can only be one choice. The Republicans have absolutely no solutions to America’s problems. The recent off-shore drilling proposal would do almost nothing to solve America’s energy crisis (and have zero effect in the short term), yet they’re still gaining traction with this bullshit because their “message machine” is vastly superior to that of the Dems.

As P.J. O’Rourke famously said, “The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.”

* Corsi on Islam: “a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion”
* Corsi on Catholicism: “Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn’t reported by the liberal press”
* Corsi on Muslims: “RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters — it all goes together”
* Corsi on “John F*ing Commie Kerry”: “After he married TerRAHsa, didn’t John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?”

- Well, I don’t think that language is especially appropriate to public discourse but is any of that not a valid opinion? I mean, it appears that non-consensual pederasty is a major problem in the arab world (http://www.henryk-broder.de/html/fr_glazov.html) and that Islam (as practiced) plays a role in normalising non-consensual sexual relations; and the catholic church never would have started to get its own house in order without lots of external pressure. Dunno what he thought he was getting at with the Jewish connection…

I’m not sure I agree and I’m not sure it’s helpful to ascribe base motives to your opponents, which is more to the point.

The Republicans’ last two consecutive Sectretaries of State have been black, so it is hard to argue that they have a tendency to capitalise on the votes of a racist minority and even if they did then these were unlikely to vote for the Democrats in the first place.

It might be more accurate to say that there is an anti-PC constituency which responds reactively or counter-intuitively, or you could describe it in what I think would be a more accurate sense as the ‘patriotic’ vote: McCain is the war hero and Obama is in the anti-war camp – this influences a large portion of national pride.

Other issues such as foreign relations and trade show Obama to be more of a global figure interested in the real place of the US in the world, rather than its perception of US status, while he also promotes the view that the US should forge a way forward by agreement, rather than by imposing its might and dominating discussions.

My feeling is that any suggtion of race as a motivating factor will play differently among the different communities, particularly that it may be felt to be an aggravating factor which creates resistance rather than sympathy.

It is to underestimate the electorate to insult them and their hardheadedness, so for him or any of his supporters to play the race card would be to weaken the case for an Obama presidency. He must rise above the symbolism he represents and not allow any distraction from the very real issues which face the people.

If he can withstand the obvious cheap shot in his locker he forces McCain to raise his game and the current caution towards him will swiftly weaken as he shows he can win on the arguments, or, if all else is equal, then he will win on personality.

Left-wing observers might get swept along in the hysteria, but the people who decide the outcome are those who approach the subject seriously and maturely.

Consider yourself chastised, Sunny, cos you ain’t helping his cause.

I like Obama but the hurdles he was always going to struggle with were race (unspoken but real as you point out) and elitism, the ‘one of us’ thing. Dug out this quote for James Bryce’s ‘The American Commonwealth’ (1888):

“Europeans often ask, and Americans do not always explain, how it happens that this great office, the greatest in the world, unless we except the Papcy, which anyone can rise by his own merits, is not more frequently filled by great and striking men. In America, which is beyond all other countries the country of a ‘career open to talents’, a country, moreover, in which political life is unusually keen and political ambition widely diffused, it might be expected that the highest place would always be won by a man of brilliant gifts. But from the time when the heroes of the revolution died out with Jefferson and Adams and Madison, no person except General Grant reached the chair whose name would’ve been remembered had he not been President, and no President except Abraham Lincoln had displayed rare or striking qualities in the chair”

It’s an old passage but remarkably prophetic – when it comes to politics US voters have a deep distrust of brilliance since politics is rarely a noble art. Being ‘good’ at it essentially involves the deployment of vice – telling audiences what they want to here, glossing over disagreement but advancing an agenda in spite of opposition etc. I have some sympathy with the American desire to feel like they have ‘one of their own’ at the top rather than someone who lives and breaths politics.

It’s shameful (but very clever politically) that the Republicans are in a position to exploit this valid ‘he’s different from us’ theme (i.e. west coast Liberal, Lattes etc) in the knowledge that many people hearing it will ally it with the completely objectionable version related to the colour of his skin.

I have no great idea as to how team Obama handles this but they’d do well to remember that they’re pitching, in some states, for the votes of people who last time felt comfortable voting for George W Bush. The gulf that exists between their man and the one the got the votes last time is so huge that they’d be foolish to think their man’s elequence and rock star quality is enough to pull him through…

The american left are very weak, and tend to give into what ever the right wing tell them.

Hi Liam,

Excellent points.

I think things are going as well as anyone could hope. It’s true that Obama isn’t quite burying McCain in the way you’d expect (considering McCain’s woeful campaign, the national swing toward the democrats, and Iraq), but all Obama has to do is do better than Kerry. McCain will not mobilise the GOP anything like as well as Bush did in ‘04. I expect he’ll do well enough.

Racism is a key issue, of course. Many Americans probably wont vote for Obama and the Republicans are *definitely* using his “roots” as way to draw attention to his skin-colour, and the memories of radical black politics. But those people who this politics appeals to, probably wouldn’t vote for Obama anyway.

The american left are very weak, and tend to give into what ever the right wing tell them.

I think the American left is much stronger than that of Britain.

Nope they let reagan get seen as a hero. Kerry got to be seen as a bad guy when he was a hero, and bush got elected any nation that lets someone as weak Bush elected has a weak weak opposition. The american left is very weak.

Thatcher is seen as a hero by many.

The Republican message machine is far better in permeating the American conscious by playing to patriotism and bigotry. It’s a vast and complex network of commentators, talk-show hosts, and journalists that shapes the debate.

The American left has reacted to this threat. First with grass-roots movements such as MoveOn.org and blogs such as The Huffington Post and Kos. Later even the MSM started fighting back. Shows such as NBC’s Countdown are challenging Fox News.

Likewise in the UK, right-wing rags such as The Sun and Mail shape a great deal of public opinion. Some of us are fighting back.

The American left, like our own, is fighting an established machine with pots of money. The revolutionary grass-roots campaigns of Howard Dean and now Barack Obama show that the American left is dynamic and strong. Weakness is not defeat, it is not learning from set-backs.

If a great candidate like Obama cannot beat a 71 year old man, then we just accept the left in the USA are very very weak. Defeat is weakness.

“Defeat is weakness”

That’s a curiously right-wing thing to say.

Regardless this discussion on the strengths or otherwise of the American left is missing the point – ‘left’ in American terms is different from ‘left’ in European terms.

…a 71 year old man

Whooaaah there. Age is not the issue. The fact that McCain has sold out every one of his principles and thrown his lot in with the hard-right, is more the point.

I fancy Obama to win.

The big shock to the GOP will be further significant losses in the House and Senate. The House, Senate, and Presidency will be firmly Democrat (with just the Supreme Court holding out). Surely this is enough?

Liam,

I’m not so sure that the two lefts are so different. I used to think so. But then I consider myself of the left, and I’m certainly no socialist!

I suppose it’s an issue by issue thing Aaron.

I’m routinely described as a Tory blogger but voted Labour at the last 3 elections – I’m firmly on the moderate, liberal wing. The distance between me and those on the hard right is far greater than the distance between me and you – presumably on the moderate wing of the left. I would certainly be a Democrat in the US.

My point I think is that the American left is far less fractious than the European on. They might not have great sway at the moment but the British left can accomodate the likes of Compass etc. whereas the US democrats would balk at the idea.

Weak parties lose.

Seems to me that it only matters if people who would otherwise consider voting Democrat are racists… the rest have no impact except for bringing McCain closer from behind in the polls.

My point I think is that the American left is far less fractious than the European on. They might not have great sway at the moment but the British left can accomodate the likes of Compass etc. whereas the US democrats would balk at the idea. ~ Liam

A fair point. But the American left has quite hard-left factions (indeed some very committed to a much larger Welfare State).

I consider myself a left-winger because I’m radically liberal on social issues (I may call myself a social libertarian) and very left-wing with regard to foreign policy. I’m probably more rightwing/centrist on economic issues, though. I believe in equality but also in effort and reward.

BTW. Don’t miss this. Rattled me a bit. ;o)

Weak parties lose. ~ dirty euro

Well you called the entire American left weak. The Dems are a broad church.

However, I’d agree that the Democratic Congress and Senate have proven incredibly spineless in not using their majorities to clip the President’s wings more, and I’m outraged they’ve flatly rejected any moves to impeach President Bush. The Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about getting his dick sucked, Bush’s lies have been much more damaging and significant. But this cowardliness doesn’t extend to the American left en masse.

I spotted the HJS piece and flagged it on my TTRU, up here tomorrow I think and at my place now.

The problem with the Democrats is they don’t fight back. Kerry stood by, and had his war record trashed by the right. Ever since Ray-gun got rid of the fair doctrine in the 1980’s the American media has become a joke. They are the Pravda of the Republican party. Sooner or later the Democrats are going to have to take on the media.

If Obama does not win, then they need to stop playing along with the news media. Also they neeed a new generation of Dems who are prepared to fight back, against a Republican machine that will do anything to win.

I spotted the HJS piece and flagged it on my TTRU, up here tomorrow I think and at my place now. ~ Liam Murray

Good man. My apologies I haven’t been to your blog for a day or two. 0:-)

Sally,

Yeah, Kerry stood by and let the right trash him and win. Obama, while resting on his laurels initially, is fighting back. See here.

Hello all, I’d been having some trouble accessing LC so couldn’t reply before.

DES’s point that: Well you called the entire American left weak. The Dems are a broad church.

Is true to the point that the Democrats are always defending a Republican attack rather than launching their own. This is why Kerry lost – he didn’t more actively challenge the Republican message machine.

And its the bloggers who have forced the Democrats to grow some cojones and fight back, and even ignore Republican ‘talking points’.

The Republican party is good for two reasons:
1) They’re unscrupulous and will say anything
2) They’re united in their message, talking points, narratives and in backing each other.

The left is universally weak because there’s this obsession with ideological purity over actually winning elections and understanding that in politics you don’t always get what you want from your politicians.

There’s plenty of evidence of that from the UK too, and a theme I’ll return to in subsequent pieces.

The Obama election should offer a good lesson to the British left too, not just Democrats.

It sounds like everyone here has already made their mind up, even though the debate has only just emerged from the preliminaries and not yet reached the conventions.

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama/to vote for McCain if that’s what you see fit, so it’s odd that commenters here seem surprised that the Republicans haven’t already conceded defeat and presented their new messiah with a walkover!

There is a gulf of difference between hard issues, patriotism and bigotry, and it isn’t helpful to the cause of trying to win your opponents over by ascribing to them the basest of motives.

Any suggestion of race in the debate will sink it into the gutter and tarnish the illusions of the left more than the cynicism of the right. The fact that Obama has tried to rise above the petty gutter-sniping of the commentary gallery has raised the quality of debate this time round, for which we should all be thankful. He has to win on the issues, because the decisive voters are hardheaded and serious and could care less about symbols, and whatever anyone else says it is only sensible to hold fire with caution.

So this post doesn’t make sense – unless, that is, it has been motivated as a kite-flying experiment on the issue of race with respect to UK politics. Now, which Labour MP and acquaintance of Obama could fancy themselves as a potential successor our current premier?

He has to win on the issues, because the decisive voters are hardheaded and serious and could care less about symbols, and whatever anyone else says it is only sensible to hold fire with caution.

This is wishful thinking at best, and naive at worst. The voters are hardly ever hardheaded and serious, and are VERY influenced by symbols and rhetoric. Bush won last time by casting doubts about Kerry’s record when there was no evidence to back that up.

Now you’re being naive, Sunny, and you are insulting the intelligence of the electorate. Which no politician will ever advise as a winning tactic, at least not in public and not unless they are lagging in the polls.

Sure, there are many people who, like you and the evangelicals, are influenced by symbols or icons, but you are all on the illiberal idealist wing, while the ones who will decide this US election are the level-headed, mid-range, heartland professionals and independents who are unprejudiced either way and have yet to make a firm decision.

Frankly, it is shocking that you recommend using the same tactics as your opponents whilst maintaining that your aims are different. It is clear you either do not recognise the different political dynamic at work between the parties on different sides of the divide, or you disagree that tactics create outcomes. I’ll repeat for you: the ends do not justify the means, they are determined by them.

While I’m sure you are convinced that Obama is absolutely the better candidate and cannot find any way to equivocate in the matter, you set yourself up for a fall by reducing the contest to a simple decision about what you think from your personal position – how do you think you are going to win those voters over by telling them they are stupid? Is disagreement on the matter illegitimate? Why not then lobby for a constitutional amendment to make it law that Obama must win and anybody who thinks otherwise should be imprisoned for the duration?

Just as the Guardianista campaign to write to potential swing voters to urge them to choose Kerry last time spectacularly backfired and built resistance to him, your attitude could prove off-putting to any number of people and by raising the issue of race as an electoral issue you give some a reason to vote against their better judgement – which is often enough to make the difference in a close call.

So the effect of your argument is that Obama should behave like a Republican so he can win like a Republican. Are you sure you’d not really prefer the Republican candidate to win?

Now you’re being naive, Sunny, and you are insulting the intelligence of the electorate. Which no politician will ever advise as a winning tactic, at least not in public and not unless they are lagging in the polls. ~ thomas

Oh no Sunny, looks like you’ll never again be voted CiF blogger of the year!

Thomas,

I’m sorry, but while you attempt to make a legitimate point, most of your reasoning is a bit daft.

Right, I’m off to Pärnu Aquapark.

while the ones who will decide this US election are the level-headed, mid-range, heartland professionals and independents who are unprejudiced either way and have yet to make a firm decision.

Yeah sure. That’s presumably why Republicans have always won in the past through negative campaigning.

Frankly, it is shocking that you recommend using the same tactics as your opponents whilst maintaining that your aims are different.

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. It depends of course on what your goals are. If you want to sit on the sidelines forever like a puritan – do so. But in the face of the Republican smear machine you’ll lose every time.

Are you sure you’d not really prefer the Republican candidate to win?

Nope. On policy differences I’m as far as I can be.

Sunny, the Republicans haven’t ever won through negative campaigning, the Democrats have lost through failing to respond in a way which properly and adequately addresses the legitmiate concerns raised by any negative campaigns.

When transposed to politics the fire-fighting analogy is meaningless at best and damaging at worst because it only works by shifting the emphasis of the discussion from tactics to the unspecified nature of the terms they are used under.

I disagree that smears are necessarily damaging, that is unless they are relevant and they are factually correct – in which case the damage is really self-inflicted and deserved.

The way the Obama campaign has effectively rebutted the attack of Jerome Corsi’s The Obama Nation by highlighting the inaccurate reporting and inappropriate use of examples to make flawed arguments with unsustainable conclusions has proved far better at negating its impact and damping down any controversy they may provoked by reacting in a tit-for-tat manner – Corsi may be a racist fringe lunatic, but unless he can rally the more moderate support of people who don’t know the full extent of his views, thereby reinforcing the false divisions built by his lies, sinking into the gutter to duke it out will prove diversionary and counterproductive to the real aims Obama is working towards.

It is also strategically inept to place the onus on one side of the debate so early on in the campaign as over-exposure on one candidate can easily lead to inverted perceptions of their realive strengths and weaknesses. It is far to early to draw any real conclusions from polling returns as many people are still seeking more information before they feel they feel able to make a proper decision.

Aaron – play the ball? I thought is was funny way of making a demonstrating my description by responding to an accusation of naivete with an escalated version of the same insult. I’m sorry you didn’t pick up on it, I’ll try to be more obvious next time I make a ‘this is, how to’ point.

Sunny, you may want to check out David Broder in today’s Wash Post or Clarence Page in the Chicago Tribune for some more insight.

Or even Frank Rich in the NYT.

thomas,

Over the last two elections, have you beloved Republicans not won through debateable gerrymadering, or worse?

This is not democracy as we were led to expect it, was it?

No, thomas, it was not.. Hanging chads, ffs.

Get over it, the Republicans won by cheating.

Douglas,

complaining about a dodgy linesman when you’re playing for penalties is plain bad sportsmanship. Both parties have been guilty of gerrymandering and worse for more than a century – it’s just sour grapes to admit that the other side are better at it than yours.

You allow yourself to get sucked into support for a corrupt two-party hegemony if you think Kerry would’ve been any better than Bush – exactly what has he done since 2004 to suggest he deserves any support?

He didn’t lose because of any cheating, he lost because he couldn’t convince enough voters to support him.

He didn’t lose because of any smears, he lost because there were huge concerns over his proposed domestic reforms, his economic programme and his foreign policy positions.

He gained a reputation for inconsistency and incoherence (ie ‘flip-flopping’) which would have been more damaging than being simply ‘wrong’ in the way Bush has been.

He’s just another dynast who’d have strengthened the hold the establishment has over the people. His family made their money in the opium trade and he married the Heinz heiress; he was a member of the Skull and Bones society and is closer to the inner circle of the US elite than any of the Bushes ever will be.

If you think John Kerry is a supporter of democracy you have had the wool pulled squarely over your eyes.

The US election isn’t about Republicans vs Democrats, it’s about idiots vs fools and liars vs cheats!

Obama might be a whole lot better than McCain, but both are about as clean as a toilet at Glastonbury.

thomas,

Still, as far as I can tell from your post, you are not denying that the heroic Republicans won within the rules? Are you?

Hanging chads, Florida, what does it take for you to recognise a Republican for the evil little person he or she might be?

I have no disagreement with you about the obvious fact that US democracy is fucked. However, this is remarkable:

He gained a reputation for inconsistency and incoherence (ie ‘flip-flopping’) which would have been more damaging than being simply ‘wrong’ in the way Bush has been

You elect a President, frankly electing a brain dead moron to the highest office in the Western World – which strikes me, and most of the human race, as incredibly stupid. Kerry may have had his faults, but he was not a brain dead moron. Bush re-defined the meaning of the word ‘wrong’. He’s not such a popular wee boy these days, is he?

There is probably an analogy from ancient Rome.

Assuming that Bush was braindead was a prime mistake of the Democrats.

douglas,

I don’t deny that the Republicans cheated, just as I don’t deny that every successful US Presidential campaign has benefited from cheating, or that every losing US Presidential campaign has benefited from cheating. And lying.

I also don’t deny that for every occasion any candidate who has stretched and bent the rules to their benefit real people have suffered. Sometimes the suffering can be measured in pure cash terms, sometimes in sweat, sometimes in tears and often with blood.

But to most politicians the suffering is invisible, that is, unless it impacts upon their power base.

But getting back to the relative merits of brain-dead morons and well-intentioned fools – how do we create an accurate measurement?

With regard to Bush we can easily state that X amount of people have died as a result of the adventure in Iraq, but from the point of his successful reelection we have to ask how many more would have died had as a result of immediate pull-out and how many more would have died as a result of failing to institute the ’surge’?

This is where Bush actually starts to win out over Kerry. His stength is that he accepts his limitations, is more amenable to political reality and able to adjust his policy to fit facts (when he stopped trying to fit the facts to his policy after 2004/5) – although he is the face of the administration his lack of obvious intellectual dominance insulates him from any loss of political capital in admitting mistakes, which would otherwise destabilise a Kerry or Cheney and force them to continue with a failing and unpopular policy.

So in terms of our dispute you are arguing from an idealistic point of view that the better man was cheated out of a deserving victory, while I’m arguing from a realistic position that we got the better candidate, as sickening as that may sound.

Whichever way history decides, we can bewail our misfortune all we want, but we will still have to live with the result and the truth will remain that due to the paucity of candidates we got what we deserved. As will also be the case come November.

I couldn’t care less about declaring any support for any party which contests any foreign elections, I only care about the consequences of them and what I can do.

Thomas,

But getting back to the relative merits of brain-dead morons and well-intentioned fools – how do we create an accurate measurement?

Good point. If we ever solve that problem it’d move democracy away from the idea that it is just a teensy bit better that tyranny.

I couldn’t care less about declaring any support for any party which contests any foreign elections, I only care about the consequences of them and what I can do.

I’d like to agree with that, but you have said that I am an idealist, whereas practical politics means that it matters a hell of a lot to you and me who occupies the White House, given the submissive nature of British PMs to POTUS’s. With the honourable exception of Harold Wilson, perhaps.

It is also aggravating for those of us that think democracy is the real deal to see it being demeaned in the way it was.

Douglas, what do you mean by “democracy is the real deal”?

Um, Douglas, the terms of the Anglo-American Loan required subservience on purely financial terms until it was paid off at the end of 2006. Of course Britain couldn’t act independently unless it advanced our financial position and didn’t threaten US concerns.

Please don’t ever use the word honorable in conjunction with any politician, unless you are using it formally, and especially not in conjunction with Wilson’s name – he was a master of dirty tricks and talent-spotted Jack Straw for his ability in this area for gawd’s sake!

thomas – the Obama campaign issued a massive book to rebut the lies contained in the Obama Nation book.
John Kerry has just started a website to highlight and fightback the smears:

http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/index

If you still think these lies, and the swiftboating of John Kerry “addressed the legitmiate concerns”, then I’m afraid you don’t know the whole story.

Furthermore, there’s no point you telling me fighting fire with fire is a bad idea. Its like saying that Democrats shouldn’t “raise legitimate concerns” about Republicans, only the latter can.

If I was a Democrat, fighting against the smear machine, the only winning strategy is an offensive one rather than a defensive one.

He didn’t lose because of any smears, he lost because there were huge concerns over his proposed domestic reforms, his economic programme and his foreign policy positions.

Kerry lost thanks to the ‘Swift-boat Veterans for Truth’, who raised false concerns about his military record.

Obama might be a whole lot better than McCain, but both are about as clean as a toilet at Glastonbury.

Which is why I’d support going on the offensive against Republicans to ensure Obama won, rather than simply lying back and hoping the right person won. I know who the right person is.

And lastly, you can’t be blase about GW Bush winning, and then criticise American politics. Both are the way they are because that’s how the system has evolve.d We have to live with it. Now the question is – who is the better candidate and how can that person win?

Sunny, you make my point for me.

Obama isn’t lying back and thinking of Indiana (or should that be bending over?) he is responding to the smears, but not in the way you initially advised. Now you attempt to claim that a rebuttal is as good as equating republicanism with racism when before you state it wouldn’t be as effective.

It’s no wonder you defend Kerry, when you behave as dishonestly and as weakly as he did during his campaign in trying to cover for the dishonourable nature of his activist behaviour and the debatable nature of his awards for heroism. I note you avoid any consideration of his opposition to continued involvement in Iraq, which contrasts with Obama’s phased withdrawl strategy and the McCain-sponsored surge. I also note you fail to recognise any of the glaring inconsistencies in his 2004 programme which have since been shown to be unsustainable – death penalty for terrorists, I ask you?

Your assumption that the clear language I use should be judged in the terms of euphemism that you prefer is offensive and damaging. Raising legitmate concerns means just that: When did McCain start criticising the war in Iraq? How did McCain react when Katrina struck New Orleans? What is his connection with Rev John Hagee? What about the lobbying support McCain recieves from Ralph Reed, who he investigated in relation to corrupt lobbying practises? Or all his other lobbyists with connections to every possible dodgy company? Why is it that the Straight Talk Express has gone silent? Why don’t we see his family’s tax returns? Why haven’t any questions been asked about Cindy McCain’s conflicts of interests between her campaign groups and business interests?

When it comes to measuring up for the highest office there are no excuses.

Which is why it you shame yourself for suggesting I was being blase about GW Bush. I do not excuse him for any mistake he has made, I try to understand the reasons for them in order to learn any means to prevent a repitition of them in future.

If you are so certain about who the right candidate is it would be helpful for you to share your knowledge with the rest of us poor unfortunates.

In the meantime please stop building up demons to fill your nightmares with, because delving into the pit to purge those demons is a thankless and fruitless task – if you ever escape, it won’t be unscathed.

Kerry lost thanks to the ‘Swift-boat Veterans for Truth’, who raised false concerns about his military record.

I thought it was that and his flip flopping, his attempt to offer little else than not being George Bush, his failing the BBQ test etc. Quite frankly his salute/I’m ready to serve crap was so bad he almost deserved to lose on that alone.