The Electorate Decided to Gore Bush and Then Opted to Trump Clinton.

Looking at the picture of Al Gore in Time Magazine's Dec/2000 issue, the same kind of steely-eyed disdain is evinced on Gore's face that reflects the same mindset that thought calling the opponent's supporters "deplorables" was a good idea.

Victim of Putsch Putsch in the Bush.

Bush, on the other hand, may look feckless, illiterate and about as presidential as Inspector Clouseau, but his expression communicates that, even though he'll be the closest approximation to having a retard as President as is likely we'll ever get, at least he'll mean well, a funhouse reflection of Gore's mien, which contrarily suggests he just does "Mean" well.

Ended up with blood and Gore on his hands.

But Gore, like Clinton in 2016, was, to the elites of the DNC, the safe choice. Just not one in whose choice the voters had much say, or could warm up to with very much enthusiasm, as his problem was the same as Hillary Clinton's: he comes across as cold, entitled, and hopelessly corrupt. So the cluelessness of the Party to its own constituency's dislike of its hand-picked candidate fell on deaf ears in 2000 and then reverberated its eerie echos through history's corridors to fall on the same deaf ears in 2016.

Because the Democrats were/are so intent on using the strategy of vilifying the other Party 's candidate as their main argument to convince voters to vote for their guy, that they neglected the issues, real issues that affected peoples lives, and that would be more constructive in convincing the electorate of the positive factors they should weigh when considering their choice for President.

In other words, they used the strategy Bush Pere used to defeat Dukakis, forgetting that what works for Republican Party adherents doesn't necessarily work on Democrats ... in fact is more effective at convincing Democrats to simply not go to the polls.

Which, if it were used once and subsequently served as a learning point from which the Party moved forward, would be one thing, but when the lesson learned its simply forgotten and the same strategy adopted once more 16 years later, suggests quite another.

It suggests an arrogance and hubris that is not to be dissuaded by facts ... or the will of the voters, which, without the interference of the pro-Hillary press (the most blatant of which was Rachel Madcow's obvious and un-journalistic out-of-hand dismissal of Bernie Sanders as a serious contender, and the DNC itself, as revealed by the Wikileaks e-mails and the subsequent resignation of Debbie Wasserman Shultz), may well have nominated Mr. Sanders instead of that lightening rod for everything that's wrong with the Democrats' rule: Hillary Clinton.

To cite one of my posts from before the election, I do believe that I reflected the opinion of a lot of Americans when I wrote:

" ...until Trump got on the stump, the two major parties were perfectly content with the prospect of presenting the electorate in November with a choice between the criminal Bush family or the corrupt Clintons. Back to the future of 1992. Thanks a fuckin'  lot."

Yet the Democrats had not a clue that their party of so-called progressive politics offered their constituencies nothing but regressive solutions to problems their adoption of the Reagan/Bush agenda of off-shoring jobs and entire industries to allow American Corporations the "freedom" to crush wage demands, pour pollutants into the atmosphere, rivers and soil, and deprive their workers of healthcare benefits, paid vacation time, or pension plans. And to then simply offer job "re-training" to prepare those thrown on the slag heap of unemployables for the jobs of the New Economy that never materialized.

Here in San Francisco you can see the results: they are two-fold. The Prius buyers who, snug in their smug political correctness, pay more for an electric vehicle or hybrid than they will ever save in fuel cost reduction, while on the other hand the swarms of bicyclists wending their way en masse through the city streets, who will never, for the most part, ever be able to afford a car of their own. Contrarily, if you look to Beijing's city streets you see exactly the opposite: traffic jams so monumental they have on occasion lasted for days have replaced the hordes of bicyclists that streamed through those same city streets a mere generation ago. All funded by the investment the Communist economy could never have amassed, using instead the stolen savings of American labor to build enterprises that would funnel earnings back into the pockets of CEO's and the bank accounts of the wolves of Wall St.

All while the Liberal Democracies claim their ascendancy makes the political structure of the West the "End of History". So then why did no Democratic candidate for the Presidential election, including Mr. Sanders, address the issue that it is a totalitarian Communist regime that has experienced burgeoning growth that none of the calcified western liberal democracies can even come close to? Why has the era since Reaganomics and the canonization of Free Markets left the economies that espouse them in the dust, its citizens mired in "austerity", with less and less with each passing decade until their citizens are not only left with nothing, but their prospects of ever affording something as normal as a Doctor's visit that was taken for granted a generation ago, now considered an unaffordable luxury? Where DB (defined benefit) pension  plans have been replaced by 401 K's that are so laden with "maintenance" fees and overhead, that, even when they do make gains, they are skimmed off into the pockets of the pirates of the financial sector, and any other investment is left to lie fallow, while the Fed ensures that the "money" they create via nothing more than a wave of their magic wand flows into the stock market, giving hefty returns to those already in it, but making the entry point too high for those who aren't, yet simultaneously leaving it as your only choice. All of which means, something not lost on even the financially naive, that the more you put in, the more you are likely to lose, and at a time in your life when it will be too late for you to ever recoup your losses. You don't need 3-D glasses to see that this is the best that Clinton and her so-called progressives offer the working masses: Despair, Destitution and an early Death from opioid addiction.

And you blame the Russians for your electoral defeat?

"The fault, dear Democrats, is not in the Tsars,
But in yourselves, that you think us your underlings."

The only Communist Country on the globe is the most powerful economy in the world, the economy that all the "End of History" economies were forced to rely on in order to pull them back from the abyss that the malfeasance, embezzlement and other fraud-on-steroids grifts had plunged it into, yet not a peep is heard as to what that stark reality portends. The best they can do is promise more of the same.

Instead we're grifted with the excuse that the Russians interfered with our elections. I'm quite sure they did. But, like during the financial free-for-all that ended in the collapse of every financial institution in the country, one that was contrived by our own countrymen conspiring for our ruin, was obvious what was happening then, and it was just as obvious during the election cycle that the Russians were trying hard to discredit Clinton as early as, and really, even before, the Parties' conventions, yet, as in the Bush years, no one said a word. During the Bush era, because they were too busy building financial empires on shifting sands to worry too much about how the crash would effect them (everyone's always convinced they'll get out in time and remain unscathed by the coming debacle), and during the election cycle, because they were too convinced that Trump was such an obviously flawed candidate, that he was in possession of neither the mental resources nor governing experience to have his chances of victory be taken seriously (a perspective President Obama  gave voice to when he squelched Comey's investigation into said interference because it might look like he was abetting candidate Clinton ... but this doesn't fit into the picture being painted now by his fellow Democrats who are screeching hysterically that such interference is an ACT OF WAR! ... now which party sounds fucking insane? Because these two reactions to Russian interference in our elections simply do not gel).

So as the President bears out every fear any sane person had of how he would conduct himself in the Offal Orifice, the Democrats react as the only way they know how, like a bunch of drunken sophomores at  a football game at which they've lost due to a bad call by the ref: They've been cheated and demand restitution that can never be granted and that would change nothing if it were.

The Gore/Bush of 2000 election followed the Gorbachev decade, and both roiled their populations and ensconced a new cadre of entitled, oligarchical ruling elite in seats of power. Russia came up with Putin to push back against the pillagers of their country. His success at doing so, and the possibility that some candidate could promise to try it here, is what stokes the fear that provides the real bellows behind the flames of War being fueled by our own plutocratic, ruling elites, who then engineered the placement of one of their own on the throne. This, regardless of the chaos the child-King's rule would surely engender, as he would push their agenda, nevermind the consequences.  And, as always, it is the real people who stand to gain nothing, and lose everything, but get blamed for everything and treated as nothing.