Thursday, November 04, 2004


In my last post, I said I'd initially taken Kerry's concession as a betrayal. On reflection, I feel differently. It seems to me there are only four possibilities: 1) He lost fair and square, in which case he was right to concede; 2) He never had any intention of winning; 3) He didn't know there'd be voting fraud, and wasn't prepared for it; 4) He knew there'd be voting fraud, and has some plan to confront it, but didn't want the commotion and controversy and media frenzy that would come with refusing to concede.

Two or three of these possibilities, I think, seem very unlikely.


Anonymous said...

Philalethes, do you read Laura has a post dated Nov 3 1:42 am, which reads in part, "Talked with a friend in Boston [i.e., Kerry staffer]. . . She said that the atmosphere changed noticeably there not over Ohio but over Florida. She said about an hour after Florida was called, a lot of the big money donors just walked out of the room. That was it. . ."
Apart from obvious inferences about rats leaving a sinking ship, was the campaign thereby being told (by the donor cohort) that there would be no backing for much prolongation of the period prior to concession?

Phila said...


Interesting, if true! Not sure what to make of it...especially since the DNC's been nagging me for money for weeks to cover legal expenses, so I'd assume they had a fair amount of money saved up.

Haven't seen the article in question...thanks for the tip. Mostly, the whole thing gets me wondering: what's the best nonviolent way to get rid of a dangerous president in a bitterly divided country? Holding an election doesn't seem to work any better today than it did in 1972...the parallels are suggestive, to me.

Anonymous said...

Phila -

Kerry has plenty of money for a fight. I read an article which showed that he has significantly more money in the legal fund than the Great Pretender has in his. Can't remember the exact figures, but I remember thinking the difference was impressive.