John Kerry

of cheating in Ohio. The point was that within the period between the election and when the election had to be certified (in January 2005), there was NO way to argue that more validly cast votes were for Kerry than for Bush in Ohio.

I cited the machines because that was the most provable and there is no way that 4 hour plus lines - in a cold rain - did not cause the loss of votes (for Kerry - given the location). I am beyond impressed with the Ohioans who waited in the lines. There were other votes that were lost due to the caterpillar ballot. It is very obvious that the "ghost" spikes for nominees in some districts who had the slot that Kerry had in another district. The problem is that though a statistician would likely "correct the data" if this were a study, just like in Palm Beach in 2000 even if the intent is almost certain to be Kerry, the votes count as they were tallied. (I do get that it is most likely that there was some Republican hanky panky here.)

I did read of the plane crash and of the Republicans sharing a server with the secretary of state's official system. This was a major wake up call - in addition to 2000 that we have a third world election system. (Now combined with unlimited propaganda by the very wealthy.) This is extremely unhealthy for our democracy.

I do know that the Kerrys themselves thought that Ohio was not fair. Teresa, when she spoke in 2008 the night of Obama's victory (and Kerry's for Senate) at the Boston celebration spoke of "this time" it would come out clean (or something to that affect).

Where I disagree with you is that Kerry threw the election or failed to contest anything that could have been contested - even with a low chance of winning. Kerry, his wife, his family and his allies worked their hearts out to the last minute - and you can see in the election day photos that they were exuberant and thought that they had pulled off a very long shot win, against a very uneven playing field. He and his wife endured having their excellent reputations trashed and were willing to run again in 2008 - until it became clear that he could better achieve change by doing his job in the Senate and working for getting a Democratic President elected.

A large part of the charge that he could have challenged the results was because the dishonest Edwards - for their own gain among the left - lied to say that JRE had fought to challenge the results. It should be noted that they did this JUST in the blogospere. In the mainstream they avoided saying this using language that meant just that.

It is sad to me that Kerry was pushed and agreed to take Edwards as VP. Kerry's own gut feel was that he did not trust him. I can see how, with everyone from Clinton to Kennedy pushing Edwards, the media loving him and various polls and focus groups showing he was the best choice to say no -- and pick someone he would be more comfortable with, knowing the media was already writing that it would be Kerry's vanity or fear of being overshadowed that would stop him from picking Edwards. However, in 2004, NONE of the things that showed Edwards for who he is had happened. The damage was that Edwards was not even willing to be the Edward of the primaries and was unwilling to do what EVERY VP is tasked to do - this in addition to having a slender record to run on.