I could remind you that a year ago you praised Bush's diplomatic approach to Iran and N. Korea in contrast to taking the path of war with Iraq, as evidence of subtlety and judgment. Now, though, all it seems to reveal is The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight. Is there anything they get right?

But while I was considering, with little enthusiasm, whether to plunge once more into the breach, it occurred to me that maybe we've been arguing about the wrong things, and not seeing the forest for the trees. We keep arguing over whether some particular action of the Bush Administration is good or bad, and whether the sum adds up to making him worthy of reelection. But maybe we're overlooking the basic question of whether Bush has to go for purely political reasons--political in the high-minded civics-course sense in which what's good for the country is hammered out through political processes that are rarely analytical and rational. (I think us engineers make lousy politicians!)

I'm talking about baggage, of course. Even if you think that every one of Bush's decisions has been perfect and has produced wonderful consequences, it's hard to deny that along the way Bush has spent a huge amount of personal and political capital, and his balance is getting kind of low. Domestically he irritates half the population and incites the other half to be irritated at the first half and call them "traitors". Internationally he irritates the hell out of a good portion of our former friends and allies. You may think they're wrong, and you may think Bush's domestic opponents are wrong, but that doesn't make the controversy surrounding Bush go away. Step back from the bitter partisan debate and consider the debate itself--it's a red flag that all is not right with the American body politic.

That's the abstract political sense I mean: Politics is often about personalities, and yes, opposition to Bush really is personal--and that's a legitimate concern. A leader whose personal qualities tend to alienate people is a less effective leader because of it.

So maybe the real question on the table is whether the country would be better served by a President who's less controversial, less inflammatory, and can start with a fresh slate. Maybe the attraction of Kerry to some people is that he's so comfortingly boring. You just know the guy won't go around poking sticks in anthills.

If you think that Bush's reign has been more positive than negative, then his successor will have more freedom to build on those successes than Bush would have. If you're really concerned about the good of the country, you might find it reassuring that Kerry's proposed policies aren't actually radically different from Bush's in the area of national security.

Consider John McCain. He seems to agree with Bush in most major policy areas, but the contrast in personalities is like night and day. It's a certainty that a President McCain could pursue pretty much the same policies while generating far less opposition. Personality counts for a lot in a leader.

There are times when personality is a legitimate issue in an election, and I think this is one of them. And I'm probably tilting at windmills.