I'm not quite sure what your point is. I find it hard to believe that either party's soft money messages are not highly influenced by the candidates. I also find it hard to believe that the messages supported by the soft money spending could not be controlled by the candidates. If the Bushies are saying this, and GW doesn't approve, well, he could come out and say that he doesn't agree and doesn't approve. Until he does, it seems logical to believe that he does agree and does approve.

They did this to McCain in 2000, as well as to Sen Max Cleland, a triple amputee veteran. They have a history of smearing good people.

Bush is either the boss of his party, or not. If he's the boss, then he's responsible for these actions, and needs to disavow them if he finds them abhorrent. If he's not the boss, then I'd kinda like to know who he's the talking head for.

Again, I'm no big fan of Kerry, though I do think his record indicates that he's a pretty upright guy. He doesn't try to make simple answers out of complex questions, which means the TV generation isn't going to like him very much. I would have liked a Kerry/McCain ticket, to try and heal some of the divisiveness we have in our country.