[Rudey]

Again, there is a difference between being dynamic and responding to changes in the world and never clearly responding to something for political reasons.

Kerry talks about the gray but really he only talks about black and white and is nowhere in the gray.

-Rudey
--Kerry and Edwards both voted for war in Iraq

Originally posted by sugar and spice
I very much agree with this. I think it's clear to anybody who follows politics even in a shallow way that both parties have done their share of "flip-flopping," but as you said, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I would love to have a president who is able to say, "Given the information we had at the time, I voted this way, but now that we have different information, I've changed the way I think on this issue." How many of y'all have never had a political opinion swayed by the introduction of new information? I think being able to admit that political situations are very nuanced, being able see things in shades of gray instead of black and white, and to be able to admit that circumstances are constantly changing is a sign of maturity and intelligence, not a bad thing at all.

But I think a lot of people are comforted by the fact that with Bush, you pretty much know what you get (or at least you think you do). And that's great for them, but I would rather have a consistently intelligent leader than a consistently consistent one. But given the last election, it's become clear that the majority of the American public would prefer a charismatic leader rather than one they can't relate to (i.e. one who is clearly far smarter than they are). Charisma isn't necessarily the wrong way to pick a president, and of course in our wonderful democracy you can vote for the president who has the cutest dog if you want to, but it's not really how I want to pick who's in charge.

I have to admit that I checked out at a couple times during the debates, but even so, I was frustrated by the way that Bush kept responding to Kerry with the same three arguments ("You send mixed messages," "We're only going to win the war on terror," and "Since you don't approve of the way I'm running the war, you clearly hate all American servicemen"). It was pretty clear that he was coached to hammer on a few certain points, so when he couldn't respond decently to what Kerry was saying, he just went back to one of those three. I also thought his slip-ups confusing Osama and Saddam (as well as Giuliani's mix-ups in the post-show interview) were pretty telling, and frightening, but since so many Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 I don't think it will hurt Bush much.

Like I said last night, I think Kerry pretty clearly got the edge here, but I expect Bush to be much more prepared in the next debate, so anything could happen.