Joe Territo captures my thoughts fairly accurately:

I’m starting to question my own, somewhat recent decision to vote for Kerry. Can somebody who is running what appears to be such a weak campaign possibly be a strong and effective president? I am starting to buy into the Republican argument that even though I don’t agree with Bush, it’s better to have a leader who is clear and straightforward than one whose message is muddled. Please, somebody, talk me out of this spiral back into Bush’s corner.

My vote has been out there for the taking. I’m not sold on another 4 years of Bush, but every time I seriously consider voting for Kerry he does something or says something that slides me back into the Bush camp. His position on abortion (life begins at conception but abortion-on-demand for any woman, any age, any time, with no limits or restrictions). His incessant focus on Vietnam (his Swift Boat service & Bush’s spotty National Guard record). His position on Iraq (don’t try to win or restore peace or protect Iraqi civilians, just let’s get the heck out of there NOW).

I have a similar list of issues with Bush, but he has the advantage of having a message and a strategy (though he communicates the message ineloquently and the strategy has problems).

My controlling question is this — what’s best for the United States and the world over the next 4, 8, 12, 16 years? If Kerry wins then he’s the incumbent candidate in 2008 with Edwards as the Veep again, which puts Edwards as the candidate in 2012. If Bush wins then he’s done after this term, and with Cheney’s age & record & health we’re looking at a fresh Republican candidate in 2008 along with a fresh Democratic candidate (Edwards or Barack or Bayh, just please not Hillary). That at least creates the opportunity for both parties (or at least either party) to advance a centrist candidate that I can get excited about voting for. Imagine that - a Presidential candidate I can get excited about supporting!