This fits the liberal paradigm to explain conservatism: conservatives are simply ignorant (ill-informed or unaware of the facts), or failing that, they are unfortunately stupid (unable to draw the proper conclusions from the facts), or finally, failing these two, they are willfully evil. Hence, it follows that liberals are well-informed, intelligent, and good, no matter how idiotic they may sound.

oh, no, here we go again, Clinton is brilliant, Gore was brilliant, Kerry is brilliant. But would you be at all interested to sit down and hear him talk over dinner. Probably one of the most boriing, uninspiring, intellectually draught conversations I could imagine. Now, would you want to sit down with GW or Cheney and hear what they have to say and their thoughts. Oh yeah. One reason, because they actually say close to what they think, in public, and it's interesting. Kerry just whines like a little girl all the time.

Typical. Kerry's problems aren't self-inflected but the result of the mean GOP attack machine. These people won't accept the turkey of a candidate they might be nominating (look out for the Torricelli option) until after Nov. 2.

Speaking of idiots, how 'bout that media?

"Political hands of both parties expressed wonderment over how it was that any politician could find himself on the defensive about his own medals for valor and sacrifice."

However, I don't think there's a non-media, politico American alive expressing wonderment. If I save my entire platoon through unbelievable heroism, win the Congressional Medal of Honor, come home, and put it on Ebay within a week of my return.... yeah... I might find myself "on the defensive" about it. More to the point, if my buddy does the same thing as well, ALSO wins the award.... well... what does my putting it on Ebay say about the reverence that I hold HIS award in, as well as mine.

It ain't Kerry in 'Nam, it's the afters. Bubba Jones figured that one out. Maybe TIME Magazine will some time as well.

I will never understand why GWB is considered dumb and Al Gore a genius. GWB holds an MBA from Harvard; those are not distributed free with Cracker Jacks. Al Gore, on the other hand, flunked out of divinity school and dropped out of law school (or vice versa, I never remember which). 'Nuff said.

Every Republican president over the past 75 years has been portrayed as either dumb (Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Bush II) or evil (Hoover, Nixon, Bush I), though Reagan and GWB manage to fall into both categories depending on the topic de jeur for the Democrats. Dumb is the default option, since it allows supporters of Gore, Kerry, etc., to feel they are also intellectually superior by osmosis. But when they can't feasibly say the GOP candidate is a moron, then the Evil Candidate option comes into play, as with Nixon and GHWB (Iran-Contra, 1980 October surprise), though Clinton eventually was able to win in 2003 by using the Bush-is-out-of-touch strategy that Perot and Buchanan had forged earlier in the year.

John:

Excepting races with an incumbent, the only man this century to win election who was perceived as the more intelligent candidate was Hoover--which tells us everything we need to know.

He overintellectualizes his explanations.

That is absolutely wonderful. I'm waiting for one of my students to use that one when they screw up a test.

Watching a Gore interview during the last campaign I said to my wife: listen carefully; he's going to explain his program as if he was talking to a five year old. She responded, you mean the way it was explained to him?

I have an IQ measured at over 160; fast-track ex-kid genius, the rest of me only a life-support system for my IQ, you name it.

I know from experience that I am useless in a decision-making position. With 30+ trains of thought going on in my head at all times, I have a hard enough time picking out one to act on, then when I do I have all the "on the other hand" and "on the other other hand" and "on the other other other hand" chiming in until I am totally paralyzed with information overload.

I work best as a Number Two under a boss who actually can make a decision and then run a little interference so the input coming down to me does not overload me. Given that situation, I can work miracles like Wesley Crusher in a New Testament Trek script.

I think Carter had the same problem/advantage Ken.

Carter also felt he should/could everything himself whenever possible, hence important issues were left sitting for hours so Carter could plan out the White House tennis court schedule. Clinton also had a hard time delegating - the stuff he gave Gore to do was trivial to the point of ridiculousness ... then again, would you trust anything important to Al Gore?

The problem I think they ran into: the Presidency is not a sole proprietorship, though it is seen as one. It's actually a highly diversified corporation, where the President is the public presence but most of the heavy lifting is done by managers and department heads. These people must be allowed to do their jobs, and must be capable of doing them - compare the star power in Bush's cabinet to the nonentities in Clinton's, or (heaven help us) Carter's. It says something that in Jimmy's entourage Zbiginew Brzezinski looked like a standout.

That's the problem you have when the boss is a compulsive micromanager who insists on doing everything himself.

That's what the Donkeys don't get about GW. He manages the principals and keeps the big picture in the foreground, delegating the details. Socialists/totalitarians can't keep their egos out of the details and inject an element of confusion among the bureaucrats, looking beyond the objectives to please personalities.