Some insight from Esquire

[Doctor_J]

this mag has NOT been part of the bush symphony for the last four years. This month they have a feature called "seven voters who will decide the election", and the news is not good.

There's one guy (FL) who voted for Gore in 2000 who likes * because "at least he's a leader - he's got guts", where Kerry doesn't. One woman (OR - DNV in 2000) believes * to be a liar, and thinks the war was planned bfore 9/11, but "likes him" and "doesn't want to change in the middle of a war". Lots of "don't want to change during a war".

We're in deep doodoo this time around. Looks like Dick toe-sucker was right.

[Bucky]

1. I'm so sorry that you're right. But the story ain't over yet.

Kerry hit the right note in our convention, even if most of us didn't like it. Wallowing in militarism is unseemly, in my view. George Washington, if he were alive today, would be appalled at the level of deference given to military men in both conventions.

But at the same time, we are at war and people are scared. There's less of a war than what most people are thinking, of course, but the fear drummed up by the current administration is a political reality. If posing tough wins us more swing voters than it costs us in Green-leaning ABBs, then it's the right thing to do.

I hate sounding so cynical about election strategies, but this isn't a normal election. Like Dick Gephardt said, we'll win this one because we have to. The stakes haven't been this loaded since 1860. Real threats to our traditions have rarely been closer.