Michael J. Totten
wrote:
Why, oh why, did the Democrats have to pick Kerry? I voted for Kerry in the primary, too, but it wasn't my fault. By the time the primary election rolled around in my state the only choices remaining were John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, and Lyndon effing LaRouche. Do those of you who had early primaries have any idea how irritating those choices were? Next time, think ahead a little more. You could have gone with Edwards or Lieberman and neutralized Bush's national security advantage. That's what you should have done if you wanted "anybody but Bush."
(As with everything Mr. Totten writes, read the whole thing.)
Lieberman would be well ahead of Bush now, even after the "bounce" from the RNC Convention. (BTW, why is it called a "bounce" and not, say, a "bump"?) I have heard that many Democrats dislike Lieberman because of a crucial event during the Florida kerfuffle 4 years ago. The story goes that the Democrat machine was all set up to reject as many of the overseas military ballots as possible using every technicality they could find when a reporter asked Senator Lieberman how that fit in with the Democrats' "Count every vote" line. He said (correctly) that it was not consistent, and that the Democrats would not oppose overseas military votes on technical grounds. Since there were about 2000 such votes and the count conducted by the New York Times, CNN, etc showed Bush winning by about 350 votes, a less morally fastidious approach by Lieberman would have made him Vice-President.
Can anyone tell me how much truth there is to this story?
