Gag me with a spoon!

I'd been reading blogs complimenting Kerry for a classy concession speech. Then I found a link to a transcript. It starts as follows:

Thank you so much. Thank you, thank you. I love you. I love you, thank you. Thank you, thank you so much. Thank you so much. You just have no idea how warming and how generous that welcome is, your love is, your affection. And I'm gratified by it. I'm sorry that we got here a little bit late and little bit short.

Did they have to include that in the transcript? Did they include Dean's crazed "Yeaagh!" in the transcript? Somebody at the Times needs to edit that out!

Beyond that the speech was as gushy, maudlin and trite as every other concession speech I've ever heard. These have to be published in order to help the losers to accept defeat. It's good that Kerry repeated the obligatory litany about how we all need to come together now for the good of the country, but nobody really believes that. It's just part of being a gracious loser. The best concession I'ver heard was Adlai Stevenson's:

�Someone asked me, as I came in, down on the street, how I felt, and I was reminded of a story that a fellow-townsman of ours used to tell, Abraham Lincoln. They asked him how he felt once after an unsuccessful election. He said that he was too old to cry, but it hurt too much to laugh.�

I appreciate one thing Kerry said:

�In America, it is vital that every vote count ... but the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal fight.

I would not give up this fight if there was a chance that we would prevail, there won�t be enough outstanding votes for us to win Ohio, and therefore we cannot win this election.

The first part is important. I don't think this tactic of implying that someone has suppressed valid votes can lead to anything but division and a breakdown of civility. My answer to the challenges of vote counts in Florida would have been to keep the courts out of the vote counting processes. That is that elections can't be totally without flaws, but we have procedures and where they have been followed and there is no evidence of intentional fraud or skullduggery they have to be accepted for the sake of peaceful and timely transitions of power. That's why I'm so opposed to the tactic of filibustering judicial nominations. It puts one ideology above lawful process, by obstructing the process when it doesn't go your way. I don't think that either party should hold up nominations and use procedural tricks in the Senate to obstruct the process. I understand the problem of lame duck appointments, and I suppose that the best way to handle it would be to say that between the elections and the inauguration, no nominations should be submitted or acted upon.

As for being friends again, I'm going to wait and see. You don't call someone a liar, a chimp Nazi, Fascist, evil, murderer, imperialist, etc. and then forget all the bitterness and anger that made you say that stuff. I'd like for us to get over this little sojourn of the Democrats into madness, and I'm ready to forgive and forget. I became intemperate at times myself in response to some unusually hateful statements and tactics. But you don't let down your guard until you're sure it's safe.