I enjoyed your article. I think that the candidates try to define their opposition so that the opposition is always playing defense. It's just the strategy of politics these days, to hammer away with negative stuff.

I think that Kerry has wavered in his votes more that most. For example, in 1991 he was one of only 8 senators who voted *against* helping Kuwait, after they were already attacked, people had died, and their capital city was on fire. And Kuwait was considered an ally at the time. So our ally is attacked, and you vote to do nothing, when we are in dire need of a strong ally in the region?

Yet in this war, he voted for it, though no damage had been done by Saddam. Nothing was proven, and there were just a lot of hints that he had WMDs and was actually going to do something with them. And today, of course, he is against the war. His logic in these instances seems highly flawed to me, and in my view it is because he looks at the polls and follows them closely, rather than deciding to do what he thinks is right and just doing it.

Bush has no similar voting record. And if he did it would be full of wavering too no doubt, but I doubt it would change as often as Kerry's.

And no, I'm not pro-Bush or voting for either of these 2 guys, so don't get that assumption. I just think that Kerry wavering is a legitimate issue and I forsee the Republicans hammering it into everyones head whenever they get the chance.