But the Times cautions: "Both parties actually should be careful about the lessons they draw from the election . . . the country continues to be split almost exactly down the middle. The Democrats' two most crippling losses occurred in Minnesota and Missouri, where the voting margins narrowed to practically nothing.
"Obviously, a narrow win is better than a narrow loss, but Mr. Bush has a habit of interpreting even the tiniest margin of victory as mandates for sweeping changes."
Wasn't it Rush Limbaugh who noted yesterday that in the contested U.S. Senate races on 11/5, Republicans won 68 percent of the vote? How is that "exactly down the middle"? The wishful thinking among Dems is that they constitute exactly 50 percent of the electorate, but the wackier they get, e.g., Nancy Pelosi, the more they will be perceived the fringe party - which is fine with me. Oh yes, the point of Liz's article is to trot out Gary Hart as a viable presidential candidate for 2004. Quoting Tina Brown (what does she know?):
. "He is a less-senescent 65. He is thoughtful as hell. He keeps cranking out his scary but prescient reports on national security; even before 9/11, Hart was warning of the risks of terrorists striking a skyscraper. After the Clinton years, his ancient hanky panky with Donna Rice . . . seems almost quaint . . . He is much more credible now he's going gray." link
I'll accept Tina's description of John Edwards, though: a GQ twinkie.