You know, I would almost think that Kerry's camp is playing a complicated double game here.
On the one hand, they have to maintain credibility on intelligence and national security matters, so the Senator makes all sorts of very public statements about supporting the CIA and salutes on TV and touts his Vietnam credentials (Did you know he served in Vietnam...?). This is designed to influence the moderate voter who really is not playing close attention, to give the impression that Kerry is not a security zero in an age of terrorism.
On the other hand, if Kerry really is strong on intelligence and national security issues, he risks alienating his Democrat base, which is strongly against the CIA, the Patriot Act, war in general and the War on Terror in particular. If they see Kerry as a legitimate pro-CIA, pro-war candidate, they will either stay home, or vote for Nader. So Kerry's positions are carefully modulated, nuanced even, to be ridiculous to anybody paying close attention. The fact that he is obviously lying over Cambodia and has voted against our intelligence agencies at every turn actually helps him with his base.
So by posturing in public and being revealed as a fraud on background actually lets John F'n Kerry have his cake and eat it too. It is up to the 'Pubbies to make sure he does not get away with it, to make sure that he is branded as dishonest and wanting to have it both ways on everything.
But there are smart people in the Bush 2004 campaign who are waaaay ahead of me on that score...
Then, please point them out. I've yet to see any.
All I see is Karl Rove's condescending attitude: "Of COURSE they'll vote Republican - where ELSE are they gonna go?"
The volume has been turned up on the mind control of The Sheep, and that's where the Left has us on the ropes. The Sheep, and their votes, are theirs.