As a Republican who fought Bush tooth and nail, and still considers he is a disaster for the US and possibly the world, I'd like to say that you fellow Kerry supporters are actually too hard on yourselves about the 2004 election.

If you look at the elections since 1945, for instance you find that one of the most significant factors is the presence of 3rd parties and where on the political spectrum you find them. If the president has no 3rd party taking votes from him, he wins a second term.   Ike won in 1956. Johnson didn't even try in 1968. If he had, the anti-war party might well have lost it for him. Nixon won in 1972. The

exception to the rule was Carter in 1980, up against 17% or so inflation and the perceived national disgrace of the hostage situation.

In 1992, the 3rd party was on the right--Perot took quite a few votes Bush senior would likely have gotten. In 1996 there was no significant 3rd party--so Clinton won. In 2000 it was Nader (not a second term situation---besides, we know who got the most popular votes that year). Nader again in 2004.

You may point out that Nader got very few votes this time. True, but his presence in the campaign made Bush's #1 line plausible --flip-flopping. Kerry was forced to appeal to the left in order to win the Democratic nomination, but tack back to the middle to try to win the general election, thereby leaving himself wide open to the flip-flop charge. (In my opinion he could have flung the charge back at Bush--nation-building in Iraq, steel tariffs, etc.)

The problem may be the primary system, which tends to reward "true believers"--on the left for the Democrats, on the right for the Republicans.   I thought at the time the strongest Democratic candidate would have been Wesley Clark--good luck attacking him as anti-military. But obviously he had no chance in Democratic primaries.

Bush had no problems in primaries, obviously. So he was able to use his huge war-chest to define Kerry early---as the feminists said, EMILY---Early Money Is Like Yeast. Also, part of his supporters' money did in fact go to strengthen Nader, reminding Kerry that the Left did have an alternative, and thus making his task that much more difficult.

If this theory has any validity, the Democrat in 2008 will have a far better chance than Kerry ever did--in 2008 both parties will have primaries--with their bruising and expensive consequences.