[birbear]

I think "negative" politicking has it's place... and it's been used up. I don't think there are any undecideds who care about Bush's ANG experience any more than they care about Kerry's discharge.

The electorate has been exposed to negative campaigning for almost a year. It's at this time in the race that people want to know, "Okay... what can candidate X do FOR me."

I'm not a doom and gloomer by any means, but I see the polls. Bush got his bounce during his convention when was a positive message in most respects. His numbers go up, when things are positive. I don't think any more dirt on Kerry is going to hurt him any, but the help will be negligible.

[Blogger]

But decideds with a conscience (barely clinging to Kerry ) can be persuaded to switch sides or not vote at all).

[Carling]

Pardon me, but HYPOTHETICALLY if a future CIC running on his war record was dishonorably discharged, it does matter.

It matters a lot, and it adds more questions to this hypothetical person's integrity and credibility.

[Judith Anne]

No, but evidence of fraud obtaining a Silver Star, which he has displayed on his website over Lehman's signature, would be huge news.

If that's what it is.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Don't forget the Swiftie's were quite active during the campaign then too. I think it's good for Bush to stay positive, but Kerry's record needs to be laid out. That's not negative. That's factual. Having said that, the Swiftie's have a mission before them, and that is to set the record straight. Some may call it negative, that's fine. They have a right to be heard! They've certainly earned it.