What I find particularly hilarious in all this is that nothing Bush will do will make anyone who opposed him happy. Probably the same would be true if Gore were elected, but that's not the way it crumbled.
As a non-Clinton voter, I have to say that I'd never vote for him on principle, and based on what he stands for. The same is true for Gore.
However, I think Clinton handled several major issues well enough for me to say he did a good job. Not stellar, but good. He was lousy when it came to individual liberties, but I expected that, he was a rehashed Socialist.
Back to my point...Bush's speech wasn't bad. You just don't like him. Gore's speech was very good...and I've never heard him speak well. He's usually so damn condescending and arrogant I turn him off. But I give credit where it's due. He doesn't accept the result as valid (he made that clear...and that's ok, he's not supposed to), but he accepts the outcome based on the rules that were laid down PRIOR to the election (which is basically what the SC's ruling was designed to point out).
Now we'll see which of these guys is the real bipartisan player. My bets on CPQ haven't been playing out well, but I'm fairly certain that Bush will turn out to be a hell of a lot better than most Dems think. I'll admit that Clinton didn't mess up the country like expected him to, but he did have 6 years of a Republican Congress watching over his shoulders, and his first 2 years were a veritable hash. |
