Honestly, sometimes the lack of historical perspective among some people is very surprising.
The 2004 candidates were far from the worse we've had. The dismal period before and after the Civil War has to rank as the worst period in our history, in terms of leaders.
Bush and Kerry were both good candidates in their own way. I don't think that as a combination, they were below average. They provided a good contrast and choice. I hear the "the candidates are so bad" theme every election, including elections, such as 1980, that have produced presidents who are now considered great presidents.
Hey now
