I've always found the "messenger" explanation for the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 elections to be unconvincing. Obviously both Kerry and Gore had shortcomings as flag-waver in chief for the Democratic platform. On the other hand, I don't find Newt Gingrich or George Bush to be particularly compelling orators either. (Although Newt can be very interesting to listen to in smaller venues, particularly since he left office). And yet both had a high degree of political success - until Bush foundered when the Iraq war turned into a disaster. This goes back to my original point - the policy basis for both parties is more or less the same now as it has been since '92, because at their core the parties are have hardly changed. All that has been altered are details of communication and appeal. The idea that significant change is coming in either party has regularly proven to be untrue - losing elections has not seemed to presage major change. You could argue that Internet politicking has had a much more significant impact. Anyway, sorry I'm being somewhat unclear - in a rush, out the door!   T