`some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I
would not be so certain.'

"I would not be so certain that Saddam is five to seven years from having nuclear weapons"

Whoa, I've never seen a more rigid description of "imminent threat" in my life. That nails it down with a ten-pound sledge. I'm voting for Nader!

Look, you can play "Gotcha" until you're blue in the face. I could do the same to your candidate, and maybe will now and then.

But Bush has been in office since January of 2001. He has done many things I approve of, and a number of things I don't approve of. He handled 9/11 better than I expected him to. I'm voting for him in November, because I think he'll do what I want to see done in both foreign policy and (more or less) economic policy. It's also worth noting that any two people in his Cabinet have between them more IQ points than every Democratic Senator in Washington combined.

I do know he would make a better President than Kerry even if Bush had his head in a burlap sack and two buckets of cement on his feet. That's how easy it is to be better than Kerry in a major leadership position.

And you know what? The Democrats know it too, and buyer's remorse is setting in. That'll teach them to fasttrack the primaries.

To give Kerry some sympathy, imagine being Kennedy's junior senator all this time. Leadership and decision-making under those conditions? Hell, I'm surprised he isn't wearing a leather collar.

Of course many of the Democratic faithful could care less who their candidate is. The only objective is to destroy Bush. Dean? Clark? Kerry? PeeWee Herman? Doesn't matter. Record? Doesn't matter. Principles? Don't matter.

Good news for Kerry in some ways, since he could bugger a farm animal on "Nightline" and still count on his base for votes. Some of the lengths the media are going to to defend him are hilarious.