Nerd,   you seem to have a lot of facts. I can't dispute all of them.

I still won't vote for Dean and will vote for Kerry because I think he has what it takes to beat Bush and I don't think Dean does. So, here we go again. The lead Democrats are attacking each other and and name calling hides the issues. But is isn't just about issues. It's about style and whether you really think you can trust the candidate.

Dean claims that he was the only one who made the crucial issue decisions to change the Democratic party and has ignored Dennis Kucinich's contributions. As to the clean campaign, the jury is out on that one. We'll see. There are rules to the game and apparently lobbying is one of them. But a lot of that has to do with degree.I infer from your statements that Clinton and Kerry are responsive to big lobbying interests equal to Bush. I don't think they are as big as Bush's connections.

As you have pointed out, Nerd, they are all politicians and none of them are saints. But my contention is this, in order to be president of the United States, you have to play in such as way that someone is going to cry "foul". In short, you have to be a bit of an SOB as part of the job description.

I think Kerry will try to do something about the huge lobbying interests that now control our country. He offered some solutions such as a waiting period before government officials become lobbyists and some kind of regulatory agency. He also stated that he doesn't want your vote if you believe he will be influenced by lobbyists when he gets into office. You can believe him or not. You can also believe Dean or not.

Don't know how Dean did as governor in Vermont because his records were sealed by him until after the election. That's not a good sign for an open presidency.

I stand by my conclusion that negative facts without evidence are spin and scurrilous attacks. This was in response to the negative push-calling that Kerry was accused of.

We'll see if the DNC gets behind Dean. If not, maybe he should run as an independent. Of course if he does this, Bush will probably get in.

In the meantime, it's interesting to watch how the Democrats again shoot themselves in the foot with name-calling, heated passions and disappointments. Anger has fueled this campaign and instead of supporting one another and giving credit where it's due, it's epithet and accusations that are the rule.

Has anyone checked the Annenberg Foundation for non-partisan fact checks on the candidates? How impartial are they?

Frank