this post by the liberal avenger reminded me of something i've been mulling over recently.
why aren't people who lose presidential races considered viable candidates after their loss? it doesn't work that way in most countries, and it wasn't always that way here either. in fact, for most of this country's history people who lost presidential races would try again and win. the most recent example is richard nixon.
but since then, something else has happened. the losers are somehow discredited. the old story of someone who loses a presidential race vowing to fight again has been replaced by the idea that the loss represents their political epitaph. the losing candidate becomes damaged goods, even if they lose by the narrowest of margins. the candidate becomes something of an embarrassment. former supporters get sheepish when asked who they voted for. where did this attitude come from?
it doesn't completely make sense to me. surely anyone who gets far enough to be nominated had something going for them. but how much should we consider their loss to be a blemish on their record? the best candidate doesn't always win. in fact, in my opinion that's usually how it turns out. obviously someone who has a lost presidential race in their background raises the issue whether, in fact, they are electable at all. but people can also learn from their mistakes (that goes for both the candidate and the american public). isn't the experience of having gone through a presidential race itself valuable? is choosing a relative neophyte better?
the liberal avenger's post was about kerry. i'm not sure whether i think he should run again. he wasn't my favorite candidate. but i don't want to rule him out just because he lost.
