The Complexity of Kerry

Interesting article that articulates the essence of this values-based election. After several discussions today, I am particularly swayed by the article's arugment. The fundamentalist vote, practically nonexistant since the Scopes Monkey trial, has unified once again to defend their castles built with walls of hate, fear, mistrust, and exclusion. Catapults and ballistas of knowledge and acceptance stand poised, but the Democrats failed to marshal these weapons of siege to the polls. Hopefully it's a matter of time, and the Left will open its heart and the Right will open its mind.

In the end, Kerry was a study in too many contrasts, a figure of too much cosmopolitan and worldly flair--his image was elitis, W's was one of the people. Great article--quotes below, links posted.

The New York Times > Washington > Election 2004 > News Analysis: Electoral Affirmation of Shared Values Provides Bush a Majority: "'Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter got elected because they were comfortable with their faith,' said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a former Clinton aide. 'What happened was that a part of the electorate came open to what Clinton and Carter had to say on everything else - health care, the environment, whatever - because they were very comfortable that Clinton and Carter did not disdain the way these people lived their lives, but respected them.'

He added: 'We need a nominee and a party that is comfortable with faith and values. And if we have one, then all the hard work we've done on Social Security or America's place in the world or college education can be heard. But people aren't going to hear what we say until they know that we don't approach them as Margaret Mead would an anthropological experiment.'"