I actually just moved from New York to Boston (you don't have to say anything -- it was job-related) a month ago, just to establish that minor point.
For about a year after it happened, I really believed that attitudes had changed -- not that New Yorkers would abandon their Liberalism, but that they had in some important way bonded enough with Bush and that there would be a significant growth of support for both him and his WOT policies. And I saw plenty of anecdotal evidence around me -- people I knew whose attitudes really did seem to change quite dramatically. But I think the congenital Liberalism, the almost religious attachment that so many have to the Democratic Party, is almost unalterable. It seems to me that homegrown New Yorkers are inculcated from birth with preaching about the evil Republicans who want to take away all of your rights. They backed Bush for awhile because they were scared and Bush seemed like he could protect them. And in fact he's done such a good job of it that they take it for granted already and are back to focusing on how scary his religion is and tax cuts for the rich, blah blah blah.
I don't think New Yorkers have actually forgotten. I just think they swallow the Dem line that by going into Iraq, Bush was diverted from the WOT. I think a typical New Yorker actually believes, insane as it sounds, that Kerry would do a better job against terrorists. Or at least, they want to believe it so they can stay true to their Dem religion, which is what it is.
Having said all that, I do truly believe that Kerry's margin in NYC will not be at the level of Clinton. He'll still take it by a longshot, but there are enough good people there who really did get the message to at least hold down the numbers.
Thanks for the detailed reply...it is nice to know, at least, that some people up there in the liberal Northeast have their heads on right. :) RD