Like a broken record, let me say again that elections are about the voters. Candidates proposed and the voters chose. If there were more voters making choices this time around than in other elections, it's probably because it was recognized, at least by the alternative media, that the voters' actions are important. It's not reasonable to expect busy people to participate in something that's presumed to be outside their control--to behave like cheer-leaders instead of the main actors that they are.

One consequence of being aware of their real importance is that the voters paid close attention to the process and figured out that, given the way it was going, they could, metaphorically speaking, have their cake and eat it--vote for her now and him later. It was a win/win all around. They could please themselves and the global community as well. It's silly to think that voters can't determine and vote in their own interest--if they're presented with the truth. What happened in too many past elections wasn't that the voters made a poor choice; it was that they were given bad information (and by the same people who promote empty calories as good food). For some reason, we all bought into the logic that the recipient is somehow responsible for what he gets, forgetting that there's a world of difference between expectation and experience. And the two will never be consistent if the broker's dishonest.