[Theodore R.]

What makes one think that if the entire Drudge report on Kerry is 100 percent true that it would make the slightest difference to voters? After all, did not voters in 1992 decide that what a politican does "in private" is "private" and beyond the purview of voters so long as the politican "does his job."?

[AuH2ORepublican]

"What makes one think that if the entire Drudge report on Kerry is 100 percent true that it would make the slightest difference to voters?"

---

In 1992, Hillary went on 60 Minutes with Bill and they pretty much said he had cheated on her once (James Carville said it was a one-night stand with a floozy he met at a bar), but she had forgiven him and all was okay now. Had a recent Monica-type incident been known back then, Clinton would not have been elected (even with Perot getting 19% of the vote). At the very least, this incident will make Democrats, whose support for Kerry is a half-mile wide (he never seems to get much over 50% in any primary, so I wouldn't even say it's a mile wide) and an inch deep (exit polls show Democrats vote for him because they view him as "electable," not because they agree with him), to look at Dean and Edwards again, and expend all their resources before the Democrat convention.