"I'm not going to ever do that," Kerry said of Clinton's advice, according to Newsweek. Kerry has heard quite a bit about the fact that he isn't Clinton. He's certainly not a comparable orator or as dazzling a presence, and that is understandably lamentable. Perhaps Kerry also was less calculating than Clinton -- and if he had been, shall we say, "slicker" on some things, it may have helped him. But it's nice to know that on this issue, at least, he wouldn't completely sell out his principles and, along with them, gay Americans.

John Kerry was also up against himself to some degree. As a Massachusetts Democrat, he was lumped in with Teddy Kennedy and Michael Dukakis and labeled a "liberal" by the Republicans. It's a label that, no matter how clichéd and outdated at this point, managed to work against him with some swing voters. Being a senator didn't help Kerry either. There's a reason senators don't often become presidents. They leave a paper trail of votes -- gold mines for opposition researchers. Kerry also couldn't coin a slogan or give a good sound bite to save his life, which was the fault of the professional politicos on his staff as much as it was his. Kerry's "nuanced" position, for example, on the Iraq war, could be maddening to interpret at times, and likely cost him votes of people looking for a clear alternative to Bush's policies. And it's true that Kerry could be wooden and verbose. He was, the pundits told us over and over, not the candidate most voters would want to have a beer with, and yet, John Kerry showed them and us that "likability" and "electability" don't have to mean acting like a frat boy. He possessed a dignity and a deep thoughtfulness that would have come as a great relief.

John Kerry supporters streamed to campaign rallies by the tens of thousands this fall, even when Bruce Springsteen wasn't there. They cheered when he talked about their issues -- from stem cell research to building global coalitions. As imperfect as he was, John Kerry was our hope. We watched him slay Bush in the debates, with his intellect, wit and skill. We watched him toss Bush against the ropes, on the missing explosives and the elusive Mr. bin Laden, over and over again in October. We watched him come this close to becoming our president.

If Bush lost on Tuesday, and he came pretty close to doing just that, we would be hearing far less now about what a brilliant campaign "architect" Karl Rove is, and instead how Rove fumbled big time, how even his dark genius couldn't help Bush win a second term, despite all the built-in advantages of the incumbency. Perhaps a more calculating, fast-quipping, unequivocating Kerry would have done better. But in the end, John Kerry didn't defeat John Kerry; George W. Bush did. While it's true that 49 percent of voters, or nearly 56 million Americans, chose Kerry on Tuesday, Bush was the choice of about 3 million more. His reelection wasn't Kerry's failure so much as one more Republican victory in a string of elections that have gone their way. It's a problem the left and the Democratic Party must face now head on, a problem much larger than John Kerry.

George Bush won this election. He won it hands down, popular vote and all. John Kerry may not have won the White House, but he was a strong candidate who gave us a thrilling ride. And for that, we should be grateful. Let us now praise John Kerry, for he gave it his all.

Recent Stories