WichitaBoy

Interesting.

I was shocked when I heard Raleigh’s lecture, because I guess I’d always confused violence with dominance myself.

But when I thought about it, it made sense.

I’ve been trying to put my finger on why I’ve felt all along that Kerry couldn’t possibly win, and why I felt this way even during the weeks when Kerry was ahead. (I realize I could still be wrong, now; Kerry could win. I have no idea whether to put any credence in my perceptions.)

Anyway, regardless of whether I’m tuning into something real or not, I’ve figured out what has been affecting me, and it’s simple: George Bush “is the man.”

John Kerry is not.

I don’t like talking that way, because it seems unkind. (Uh, no, it doesn’t seem unkind; it is unkind.)

But I do believe that people feel this way, especially during a time of war.

Here’s a paragraph from Dick Morris’s latest column on Kerry:

Underscoring Kerry’s popularity problems, voters rate Bush better on a host of adjectives. Who is the stronger leader? Bush, by 51-37. Who is more honest and trustworthy? Bush, 42-37. Who will make the United States a stronger country? Bush, 46-40. Who takes strong stands and sticks with them? Bush, 56-27.

Kerry only wins “Who understands the average American better?” ÔøΩ and by only 43-36.

“Strength” is perceived to be a masculine quality, “understanding” a feminine quality.

If you’re running for president, and you’ve got a choice between having people think you’re strong versus having people think you’re understanding, you better go for strong.

Because that’s what people are going to be voting for.