activefreemedia

Love the site man. You know where I stand on all of this - the important thing is to keep the dialogue going. You said a couple of days ago that no matter what the outcome, Americans win because more of them voted. I know at the time you were pretty sure of a Kerry victory, but I still think you're right.

Thanks for the words, Ruvolo. After feeling depressed for a few days, now I'm trying to figure out my role the post 11/2 America. I do still agree that Americans win because more of us voted, but now it's all about continuing the momentum that we started to push our representatives to step up to the plate.

It's disappointing to hear Bush talk of a mandate when more people than every in history voted against an incumbent candidate. The younger progressive energy of our generation needs to begin to build a coherent world view that can compete with Bush's crew.

Sorry World:

http://72.3.131.10/gallery/33/

Interesting gallery. If I understand this correctly, these people are "apologizing" to the world because the US failed to live up to its responsibility to the world community in electing George Bush.

I'd be interested to explore the question of the US's role or responsibilty in a post cold war world. Those isolationists who propose withdrawal from international affairs seem to misunderstand the interconnected nature of the modern world and how it affects every facet of our economy, culture and society. Those on the other extreme confuse that interconnectedness as a proxy for a workable international governing structure. Clearly the nature of international relations is still chaotic. So what is the last remaining superpower to do?

To put a point on this.. What I find so interesting about this question is that for many years those on the left cited this country's hypocrisy in holding our democratic ideals so dear while supporting or tolerating dictatorial regimes. They pointed out that this disconnect between what we preached and what we practiced provided rich recruiting fodder to our enemies and left us in a rather vulnerable position when confronted on it. A typical response from the right would point to strategic interests in defeating the Soviet Union and that stability had to trump principles if we were going to prevail.

Fast forward to 2004 - the Communist movement is over. We have a situation where not only is it acknowledged that our interests ultimately lie with promoting our ideals of democracy worldwide but we are actually practicing it in our policies! One would think the liberal establishment would be overjoyed at the mere prospect of a free Afghanistan,never mind the reality of one. Wouldn't the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy surely observe that Iraq is now free from 4 decades of dictatorship and that this should be celebrated as an unheralded opportunity for millions of Iraqis? No?

Shouldn't those be the first repsonses? People talk about Values in this past election. I agree that the Dems forgot about their values but not the ones they're accused of forgetting. These were the values that I typically associated with the Left and the Democratic Party - the promise of Democracy to the poor and weak - the extended hand of freedom! Optimism!

I think the seeds for defeat were sewn when the Democrats questioned whether or not freedom was worth fighting for. With all of Bush's missteps and miscommunications - a candidate and a party who would have supported an even more ambitious campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan would have won handily. But the support from the party was not there - and I have to ask - why? I don't understand it.