You talked about the Guard: I talked about the Guard.

You talked about mudslinging: I talked about mudslinging.

You talked about the Swift Boat people: I talked about the Swift Boat people.

You talked about accusations of cowardice: I talked about accusations of cowardice.

You were not to know this, but I deleted an entire paragraph that dealt with the specific [and possibly upcoming] accusations mentioned in the article Tom cited at the top of the thread, just because you didn't talk about it, and I wanted to try to respond to what you were saying.

But if this is what you want, here it is:

You say the Democrats have more dirt on their hands because they brought up Bush's Guard service and his reluctance to release his records. You say the Democrats have more dirt on their hands because, even when Bush did release his records, there were holes in those records and the Democrats asked uncomfortable questions about a CIC that appeared to have gone AWOL. You say that it's perfectly acceptable for the Swift Boat people to say that Kerry wasn't hurt enough or in the proper way, that he didn't do the stuff that he was decorated for, and an assortment of other things, even though the evidence for these accusations is self-contradictory over time. Is that about the sum of it?

Was there a streak of partisanship in all of this? Sure. Do people have the right to know these kinds of things? Yes. Bush stonewalled, which was very dumb of him. Truthfully, I still think he's hiding something, but I don't think it matters now.

If someone responds to you in kind, but does not have the interpretations of the issues that you want them to have, that is not sidestepping. That is a difference of viewpoint.

If you want to change your signoff, that's OK with me (like you need my permission). I wish you hadn't picked a sharp post to start doing it, though. It comes across as part of the message, and I have spoken to a lot of sales people this week. :) September and October are big months for publishers.