When Senator Kerry conceded the election to President George W. Bush, Democrats across the country mourned the supposed death of our nation. Here on the Green, a group of Kerry supporters braved the bitter cold of a Hanover night and held a vigil in a show of support for their hapless leader. On the streets of Boston, I watched a soapbox preacher prophesy the destruction of the world and the inevitable oncoming nuclear winter due to Bush’s reelection. And, in what might amount to be the most morbid of all reactions, Michael Moore posted 17 reasons on his website not to commit suicide because of the 2004 election.

Nevertheless, all these pundits have sadly missed the greatest Democratic defeat of all. Neither the loss of Daschle, the loss of incumbent seats to radical Republican leaders, nor the reelection of ‘W’ can even compare. Alas, the defeat of the electoral rebel-force Scott McClure should pain Democrats the most.

Voters watching the election on their preferred mass media opiate felt a shock reverberate in rooms across campus as the results of the Idaho senatorial race arrived. Michael Crapo, the Republican candidate standing for reelection, had a steady 99% lead over McClure throughout the night. When all was said and done, McClure had brought in a disappointing 0.5% of the vote. To the Democrat’s dismay, there would be no chance for a recount and debates on the minutiae of hanging chads.

Regarding this election, only two questions should remain on voters’ minds: who is Scott McClure and why did he lose so badly?

We know at least a few things about this man of mystery. McClure has been “happily married” to his wife for 34 years. As testament to his political prowess, McClure was student body president in college – which college, however, remains unclear. More importantly, McClure is a man of virtue. Both of his offspring, Traci and Chad, attend Christian ministry. From this, we can only reach one conclusion: McClure would have made a great leader.

McClure’s strength, however, derives from his detailed political agenda and avant-garde campaign tactics. McClure is a man with a comprehensive plan for an ever-changing and fickle American electorate: the “No Stance on Record” plan. Available for view at www.issues2000.org, this simple four-word plan resolves the Zeno’s paradoxes embedded within modern day conundrums such as Social Security, the war on terror, healthcare, and civil unions. Who ever knew that the words “no stance on record” could be so powerful? Unfortunately, the citizens of Idaho didn’t think so.

But, further delineation of McClure’s plan reveals this real baby’s daddy’s true genius. According to McClure, “the national debt diverts needed resources” and the WMD claims made by Bush about Iraq remain unsubstantiated. Yet, even with such insightful talking points, McClure lost his bid for the Senate.

The source of McClure’s failure may stem from his unique campaign tactic: not having his name on the ballot. Unfortunately, due to his time-consuming policy wonking, McClure missed three deadlines earlier in the year which would have enabled him to place his name on the ballot. Instead, instructions on how to write-in a candidate dominate the homepage of McClure’s website. McClure truly is a modern candidate for modern times.

One must conclude, however, that Crapo took McClure’s campaign quite seriously. The spending charts of the two candidates in this election can provide no other conclusion. By the end of the election, Crapo spent a hefty 1.17 million dollars on his campaign, over 100 times more than the intrepid underdog McClure - his only opposition.

So, as many mourn McClure’s lost leadership, many still remain hopeful, for Idaho’s William Wallace has communicated McClure’s impending return to public life using a secret rallying cry. On McClure’s website an oath and epitaph resonate through every page and link: “This area will be launched very soon. Thank you for your patience!”