John Moore posts about Scott Dadrich's New York Times editorial. Dadich admits that, while he's a Democrat, Bush's campaign logo is much better, while the "Kerry logo displays the same inconsistency that his opponents accuse him of. . . No wonder some voters think he's a vacillating wimp."
Kerry's signs really are bad. Of course, in a presidential campaign the signs aren't as important -- in lesser races, yard signs are a primary way to raise a candidate's name ID -- but they are many voters' daily exposure to
Ouch. Of course, it's even worse when he spent four weeks mulling that logo.