As I've said before there are a number of elections that were epic to live through but aren't as interesting to study in hindsight, and vice versa for that matter. 2004 was one where both sides were at their most passionate and there was a real feeling of historic importance to it (more than just the usual BS "THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIMES!!!111!), yet in hindsight it doesn't seem like that. The most notable thing about it is that it appears to have been the last gasp of the Religious Right. 2000 is the opposite; at the time it was (as has been pointed out) viewed as dull and neither candidates were seen as being transformational, yet in hindsight it's fascinating for the legal battles and for being the election of one of the most controversial presidents in history.
The strange thing about 2004 is that it actually makes Bush look weak. Considering how well Republicans did downballot and that he was a 1st term incumbent, it's surprising to me that he didn't win by 5-6%.
He was, I can tell you that.
See that's what everything post-2000 is now, terrifying to live through because the electorate is so polarized, the candidates so dull or incompetent but ultimately of little consequence...with only 2008 to prove wrong.
I hope the history books call this part of the century The Second Gilded Age.
