Chris,

>>No, I'm being serious here. I don't think we'll have to 'turn' Gephardt at all. I started seeing articles last night on the Washington Post site (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63386-2000Nov27.html) in an articla entitled, "The Radicalization of Al Gore" where the authors state:
>>
>>"On the other hand, the considerable anxiety among Democrats last night before Gore spoke reflected their view that he continues to be erratic in making the case for himself to a broader public."
>>
>>Now, to me the significant thing here is that it is Democrats that are voicing these concerns and using words like "erratic". Usually when they start to do this in the press it's a clear sign that they are sending signals.
>>
>>My guess here Chris is that Mr. Gore will concede shortly "for the good of the nation" which I personally think will be the only way, short of winning in the courts outright, that he has a proverbial snowball's chance of making a return later. Perhaps even then he's finished.
>
>I will be very surprised if he concedes, and as this issue drags on, I agree with him more. I don't like him, but I agree with him. The votes have not been counted possibly due to faulty equipment, and he really may have won.
>
>When you are this close, you don't quit.

Well.. Who knows at this point. As I mentioned in my other message I don't think Mr. Gore is psychologically predisposed to quit but I also think that a lot of this is a form of denial on his part. That's the problem with a lot of folks, including myself over the years.. How many people do you know who have areas in their lives where they just plain deny what's real? Everyone that I know has something. Everyone. Now.. Some are a lot better at dealing with this but a lot aren't.

This is why I like to tease liberals so much. <g> Such easy non-reality-based-thinking targets. <g> Of course, to be fair, a lot of conservatives are this way too.. <g> Still.. Nothing like rubbing the nose of a self-deluded liberal in their own ..er.. keck... <g>