By Andy Matthews

I can't imagine how depressed Democrats across the country must be feeling right now as the reality of President Bush's victory over John Kerry sinks in.

So much emotion, so much energy, so much effort was poured into the drive to knock off this sitting president. A radio network was launched. Scores of anti-Bush books hit the shelves. George Soros pumped amounts of money most of us can't fathom into the beat-Bush cause.

There was Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 911". There was a constant and shameless assault on Bush from the press (if Memogate doesn't compel liberals to stop denying media bias, their delusion is incurable). There were more anti-Bush 527s than can be named in this space, and nearly every celebrity you can think of weighed in on Kerry's behalf.

And the tone throughout all this? Unbelievable, really. From Al Gore ("He betrayed this country") to Howard Dean ("George Bush is the enemy") to DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe (Bush was "AWOL"), the Democrats came at the president with venom the likes of which we haven't seen in a modern American presidential campaign.

But in the end, all their hate and all their anger got them nothing but failure. For all of the efforts of the left, George W. Bush was re-elected with the largest popular vote total in American history. No recounts. No split between the popular and electoral college votes. No "selected not elected." No "Blame Nader." No asterisks. Just a total and unquestionable victory for Bush.

How total? Bush did more than break the popular vote record. He became the first candidate since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. In bringing four more Senate seats to the Republican side and increasing the GOP's advantage in the House, he proved he had coattails that even Ronald Reagan lacked in his 49-state romp in 1984.

Democrats wanted so desperately to defeat Bush, to send him back to Texas a beaten and disgraced man, finally forced to pay for all his sins against the nation and the world. After four torturous years, they would finally have the last laugh. 2008? Who cares? They would have beaten Bush, and nothing would have been able to take that away from them.

Instead, today more than ever, America is Bush country. And the taste of victory for Republicans is so much sweeter because Democrats spared nothing in their attempt to bring him down. They used everything they had, every false charge they could think of, every dirty trick they could pull (like slashing the tires of Bush-Cheney get-out-the-vote vehicles on election day). And they still lost.

Why did Kerry lose? Please. The reality is Kerry never had a shot. Democrats ran a left-wing (strike one) Massachusetts (strike two) senator (strike three) against a president who, though not without his faults and political shortcomings, has the trust of the American people on the most crucial issue of our time. A weak-on-defense Democrat is not going beat a Republican president during war time. Period.

To boot, Kerry also ran on a pledge to raise taxes (not on everybody, mind you, but no one was buying that story). Democrats nominated anti-war George McGovern in 1972 and lost, nominated tax-hiking Walter Mondale in 1984 and lost, and then, in their infinite wisdom, nominated a synthesis of the two this year (during a war and amid a generally strong economy). And they wonder why they got drubbed?

As if those reasons weren't enough on their own, there was much more. John Kerry was not a likeable candidate. He's stiff and arrogant, and if the thought of four more years of Bush was unbearable to Democrats, the thought of four years of Kerry's stuffy elitism was no doubt equally as appalling to Republicans and a lot of independents as well.

Kerry was also hurt by his running mate. John Edwards proved to be a huge disappointment. A disaster, really. He failed to pull a single Southern state into the Kerry column (no surprise), and was exposed as an empty suit. All style, but no substance. And his worst moment of demagoguery (saying that when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up and walk again) was not only cruel, irresponsible and baseless, it was also revealing. Edwards was not ready for this stage. No wonder Kerry used him so little during the campaign.

As for Kerry, he did himself few favors. There were plenty of mistakes in the way he ran his campaign, but I believe his biggest issue-related problem was this: On the central issue to the campaign (Iraq) he had months -- months -- to articulate a coherent policy. And he failed to do it. Imagine that. A candidate for president during war time who can't even make up his mind whether he was for or against the war. It's almost surreal. For this, there is simply no excuse.

For Kerry the man, kinder words are in order (kinder words than Edwards deserves, at least). His concession was classy, uplifting even. But it was sad in a way, because beyond displaying his own disappointment, he reflected a more general sense of defeat on his party's behalf. The Democrats are a liberal party in conservative America. Kerry lost because, simply, his kind cannot win.

Democrats, for their sake, need to recognize this. The Democratic party now has some serious soul-searching to do. Rather than look for the one mistake or the one wrong turn in this particular campaign, they need to wake up to the fact that the problem wasn't the campaign. The problem is the party itself. As dejected as Democrats feel today, one gets the sense they are still not yet fully aware of how dire their situation is.

Republicans control the presidency, the Senate (with a whopping 55 seats) and the House. They control a majority of governorships. And the Supreme Court will get more conservative in Bush's second term with the likely retirement of multiple justices. This is no accident. It's the result of the Democratic Party drifting further and further away from mainstream America.

The truth is the Democratic Party simply is no longer a national party. Even in the most liberal corners of America, the GOP can lay claim to several statewide offices. Both of Maine's senators are Republicans. Ditto for Pennsylvania. And New Hampshire. There's one Republican senator from Oregon, one from Minnesota and one from Rhode Island. Republicans control the governors' mansions in Massachusetts, New York and California, three of the most liberal states in the country.

Look toward the South and you'll hardly find a Democratic presence. It wasn't all that long ago that Dixie was all Democratic. Today only four Southern senators (Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Bill Nelson of Florida) are Democrats. None of them are sure bets to win their next campaigns. The party has essentially abandoned the South.

Is it possible to win the presidency without being competitive in the South? Yes. Kerry, after all, could have won this election if he'd carried Ohio. But it's extremely difficult to do. There are just too many electoral votes in the South to concede right off the bat. Too little room for error.

But the Democrats' problem runs deeper than geography. The issues that plague them in the South (values, defense) resonate in the Midwest and elsewhere as well. Democrats can't win in Ohio for the same reasons they can't win in Georgia. Ohio's economy is worse than most states' these days, and Kerry still couldn't win it. Defense and cultural issues were the difference.

So what to do if you're the Dems? To remain competitive, the Democratic Party needs to come back to the political center and appeal to a broader cross section of the country (finding some somewhat appealing candidates wouldn't hurt, either). They need to run on the pro-growth, pro-defense policies that appeal to the majority of Americans. This is a tricky proposition, of course, because the party's base is anything but moderate. The fringe left basically calls the shots. It's telling that Joe Lieberman, a former VP candidate and by far the most qualified person in the field, wasn't even a factor in the Democratic primaries because he's a moderate.

Democrat primary voters love the far-left candidates (Dean, for example), and to be nominated, one must appeal to them. But a candidate who does so is toast when it comes to the general election. Remember that the last two Democrats to win the presidency were Southerners who ran as centrists. They were able to win the nomination because Michael Moore and Al Franken were not yet the face of the party. This year, they were.

Which brings me back to Kerry. The Massachusetts senator ran a determined and spirited campaign, and one of the things I admire to an extent is that despite all the bile coming from those surrounding him, Kerry rarely stooped so low himself.

Sure, it would have been nice if he'd condemned the Whoopi Goldbergs and the Michael Moores of his party. But at what cost? Those people today make up the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, and Kerry was trapped. He did the best he could to appease them without seeming to be one of them. But it's just not possible to appeal to today's Democratic base and moderate voters at the same time.

The vitriolic rhetoric and the nomination of Kerry were both products of the Democrats' ongoing denial. Unless and until they realize that anger and rage are no substitute for the ability to connect with typical American voters on issues, they are doomed to fail. And until they make an effort to recognize that the nucleus of their party is far to the left of the American mainstream, they cannot be competitive. The first thing they need to do is break free from the grip the kook left faction of their party has on them. Will they? Or will they convince themselves, to their peril, that next time they just need to be louder, clearer, and more liberal? We'll see.

The irony in all of this is humorous, in a way. Democrats insisted Bush deserved to lose because of his unwillingness to admit his mistakes. Instead, the Democrats lost because of their continuing inability even to recognize theirs.

Andy Matthews is the editor of rightturnonly.com.