About last summer, me and a couple of my friends were sitting around drinking at a bbq and we started playing this stupid game from LiquidGeneration called Who Would You Rather. As the night wore on, it became a rapid fire game, where you had to answer right away. It was stupid and juvenile, I'll admit, but in the end, it taught me a lesson. No matter how objectionable a choice might seem to be, eventually, you can find something seemingly worse.  As days went on, we started to apply it to a lot of other comparisions, and its origins were largely forgotten as it became just something we'd do to pass time while waiting.

Now, with all the discussion of the ABB/ABK syndrome, I got to thinking that perhaps the same principle applies to the political system as well... who would you rather be president.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of Bush myself, but even I am willing to admit that there are perhaps worse choices than him. The point I am making is that eventually if asked, even the most ardent Bush-haters could probably find a lot of politicians/activists/pundits who they would deem a more objectionable candidate. This applies to the Kerry haters as well. 

For example, for those on the left, if you had to choose between Bush and

Cheney, or 
Ashcroft, or
Rumsfeld, or
Trent Lott. or
Jesse Helms, or
Bill O'Reilly, or
Rush Limbaugh, or
Pat Buchanan, or
Pat Robertson?

would you always pick the latter in the comparisons? I have a feeling that there maybe a line that you just aren't willing to cross. Now, granted, I just chose a group of well-known conservatives, but I think you can see where I am going with this analogy. Now, on the other side of the coin, if Kerry isn't your ideal choice, would you rather have him or

Hilary Clinton, or 
Al Franken, or
Noam Chomsky, or
Al Sharpton. or
Amy Goodman, or
Michael Moore?

I'm pretty sure that Kerry might be less objectionable than some of those choices for a lot of you. But I may be wrong.