"Tomworld?" I don't pull all my conclusions out of my own head without any reference to observation of reality. That's the specialty of other people here.
Ah right.
I forgot to read the discalimer that "all my opinions are not in fact opinions but a subjective review of the facts and realities without a hint of bias towards left right or center".
Gotcha.
I refer you to this thread, where I attempted to talk sense into Bowser, but alcaray said it best.

They're willing to settle for him. They don't have much of a choice.
Every survey I have seen about the reasons primary voters picked Kerry put "can beat Bush" at about sixty percent or higher, with policies and other reasons way down the list. The Democrats should not have fast-tracked the primaries.

I had thought Kerry jumped the shark before the primaries. He may not be ideal, but like I said before, he's probably the best of a bad bunch. Leiberman was unelectable, Dean was an idiot, Clark fumbled and Edwards was too young.
Kerry eventually struck the right balance between anti-Bush and promising candidate.
The fast-tracking worked - kinda sorta. Not sure why you would think the outcome would be any different.
(Other than the longer period of free press coverage for the Dems)

Just for fun, ask any Democrat you might know if they could magically replace Kerry with Hillary...would they?

OK. Hey me - would I prefer Hill over John?
No me. It's too soon.
OK me, thanks, and a follow-up. Who would I prefer over Kerry?
I have no frigging idea me. Maybe Jon Stewart.


The analysis I'm familiar with is here. Note that things look a bit more even when organizations like Moveon.org and others--organizations specifically set up to crap all over campaign finance laws--are thrown in.

Glad we agree that the Bush campaign is all about skewering Kerry rather than concentrating on the issues :-)
Media still harps on about the 527s, still ignoring the 501(c)(3)s.
Somehow I don't think the right would be bitching about MoveOn quite as much if they'd thought of it first.

And of course, this doesn't take into account the media, most of which is pretty much anti-Bush the whole way, and doesn't cost the Kerry campaign one red cent. 60 Minutes is now the anti-Bush book club, and publications like Newsweek aren't even trying to pretend objectivity any more. Raines, former NYT editor, is offering Kerry campaign advice.

As for Al Gore, it isn't just me who thinks he's getting a bit brown and crispy around the edges.

Maureen Dowd:

Let me get this straight. While railing against the media for being anti-Bush, pro-democrat, you post a snippet not just from the NYT (it's there too) but from the arch-enemy journalist Maureen Dowd that criticizes Gore and Kerry.
You also missed or ignored my comment here on whether the press had ever erred in Bush's favour....

What is the weather like in your reality?