Wing, absolutely nothing.
As much as the Democrats genuinely wanted to defeat Bush, they remain a loyal party of US imperialism.
They could not afford, and did not wish, to label the Bush gang's acts in Iraq what they actually are: war crimes and crimes against humanity the bombing of civilian neighbourhoods and torture of prisoners), committed in the course of an invasion openly described as illegal by the United Nations Secretary-General.
Whatever their critique of "this administration's colossal error in judgment." Kerry and the Democrats couldn't and wouldn't open a discussion before the US public on the present real condition of the Iragi adyenture. Harry Sloan Tony Blair may insist that he was strictly neutral in the US Presidential race, but it is clear that he is heaving a sigh of relief that the "special relationship" he has struck up with George W Bush will roll on for a further four years.
"In a way some people are in a sort of state of denial," Blair told interviewers from The Times. "The election has happened. America has spoken. The rest of the world should listen."
Of course the rest of the world has already heard far more than it ever wanted of the hypocritical and reactionary politics that secured Bush's election victory.
Blair may be happy, but large sections of the Labour Party, and much of the European population have stood aghast at the prospect of a further term for the neo-conservative, Christian fundamentalist team that has already brought us wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now threatens to do even more exciting things" in stepping up its reactionary offensive at home - promising to outlaw gay marriage and abortion, slash even more taxes, and privatise state pensions.
It is tempting to interpret Blair's eager endorsement of Bush's warmongering as simply servile grovelling: but Blair's reaction to the election result underlines the fact that he feels a real political affinity with the President, both on his deeply conservative social policy and of course on the aggressive US foreign policy.
Asked about his support for Bush's so-called "War on Terror", Blair told The Times:
"I am not being dragged reluctantly to support President Bush. Maybe that makes it worse for people, I don't know, but I believe it is an important part of our security."
The extent to which Blair himself shares the key elements of Bush's views are clear when he insists - despite the evidence - that the American view of the threat faced by the US after September 11 is "not some instinctive trigger-happy reaction, it is a reflective and considered view". He went on:
"Now they may be right or wrong. I happen to think it is right, but it is a view that is worthy of serious debate rather than condemning people who take that view as either liars, warmongers or idiots".
Of course the Bush team comprises all of these, as well as shrewder political campaigners than John Kerry's dismal troupe.
None of this makes it easy for Blair to disentangle himself or Labour from the potential electoral damage of association with the widely-reviled Bush, the war, and the continuing slaughter in Iraq.
The additional problem for Blair is that the political influ-