There are some good points being made in this thread, along with a lot of overstatement and questionable logic. I watched GWB on Meet The Press, and thought he did a lousy job. However, I agree with Doug that a good communicator and a good President aren't necessarily the same thing.

I was in favor of going to war in Iraq, and still think that it was the right decision, even if I might have preferred that some aspects be handled differently. I hoped that Bush would advance a more compelling rationale in response to Russert's questions than he did. I think he failed this test, and resorted to repeated catch-phrases as if they were sufficient to answer the very real questions that were being put to him. His repeated assertions that "I'm a war President" were pretty galling; it sounded as if he was saying that he should be held to a lesser standard because we live in difficult times. I don't buy that.

However, I think the communications aspects of this are interesting. Most people probably did not watch Meet The Press, but rather learned about the interview by watching highlights on the evening news or reading short snippets of answers in the newspaper. When one only hears the catch-phrases once, they sound more compelling; they don't ring as hollow as they did when repeated over and over during an hour-long interview, in lieu of more detailed and thoughtful answers. Good politicians know this; George Bush knows it, and so does John Kerry. They live and die by five-second sound bites, which can either work for the candidate (Kerry's empty catch phrases about veterans), or against him (Dean's "I have a scream" speech). It's not a very good basis for choosing our leaders, but that's how it works these days.

A couple other points. I was appalled that the only lesson Bush seems to have taken away from our Vietnam War nightmare was that the politicians need to get out of the way of the soldiers fighting the war. Yes, Johnson's politicization of tactics in Vietnam was a bad move; but Lincoln's close management of the Civil War was a good move, and probably essential to victory. I would hope that Bush would consider some of the other lessons of that war.

As for the flap over Bush's National Guard service, in my opinion this is much ado about nothing. Some served in that war, some did not, and many people took advantage of whatever means they had at their disposal -- family connections or otherwise -- to avoid being sent overseas. There are lots of people who performed admirably in Vietnam who would not make good Presidents, and some who avoided the war who would serve us well in the Oval Office. I admire Kerry's bravery, but if I vote for him that will not be the reason why. I would prefer that we focus on real issues in this contest; there are certainly enough of them that we needn't go looking at 30-year-old service records to judge someone's fitness for office today.