It is last week news, but I just saw it and don't remember it being posted here...If it was, my apologies...
An independent group of Bush supporters
enthusiastically endorsed Kerry on Tuesday.  They became disillusioned with Bush policies while campaigning for him.  It just demonstrates what happens when people don't treat Bush as a cult leader, but see his policies in action and give it a thought. More below the fold.

Frank Rich says that, according to conventional wisdom, entertaining quality is something Americans looking for in their president.  And we all know Bush is an entertaining guy - this is if you like horror movies. Kerry?  Not so entertaining.  But he is knowledgeable, thoughtful, intelligent and honest.  I'll take these qualities in the president over entertaining any day.

Rich suggests that it's quite possible that America overdosed on entertainment, and  feels that this particular movie (with Bush in a leading role) may have gone on too long, have too many plot holes and may have been too clever by half.

Editor & Publisher keeps track of all newspaper endorsements.  We know that Kerry leads Bush in number of endorsements and crushes him in terms of circulation.

Today's Salon piece has a good take on it.  It points to GOP's spin that this is something to be expected, as newspapers in general are way too liberal.  This was Cheney's response yesterday in TV interview and this is the same talking points all repubs repeat - the rest is below the fold.

As you probably know and as tomorrow's NYT article states: "....in an advertisement financed by the Progress for America Voter Fund, a Republican advocacy group, which includes images of the ruins of the World Trade Center, as well as Mr. bin Laden, Mr. Hussein and Mr. Atta, the announcer asks, "Would you trust Kerry up against these fanatic killers?"

Let's see....this is after OBL and Atta successfully planned and executed 9/11 while Bush was taking vacations, ignoring PDBs, and reading "My Pet Goat".  Would anyone trust Bush up against these fanatic killers?  I mean ever again?  Take your chances?

I wonder if anyone on our side will ask this question?
9/11 happened on his watch after all, and still Repubs managed to convince more than half of the country that they are better "protectors".  I am sure that if roles were reversed, they would be running ad after ad, after ad, saying that Kerry couldn't protect America on September 11 and we need someone who can.

Good argument from the Village Voice to bring Osama back into debate.  They have a suggestion for the ad there and I hope someone (527? Kerry?) will consider it.

"The only one who can insinuate the real threat, and our lack of response to it, at the core of the American presidential debate is the man who has the most to gain by doing so. No fear of an October surprise should stop John Kerry--if it happens, he loses anyway. The only way to beat Bush is on the terrorist turf that pundits and polls say is Bush's. Kerry must do it because that's how Americans will decide this year and, ironically, because that's where the Texas swaggerer is all bluster. "

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0437/barrett.php

If roles were reversed, Republicans would not hesitate for a second to use it against incumbent.