From my blog

Solid column by David Brooks. (Vilas quoting a republican? Not as unusual as it seems). It takes a hard look at Senator Kerry transformation from a political flame, bursting of energy and ideology to his present overnuanced, noncommital attitude toward issues. Bush's campaign rhetoric has been somewhat along these lines, and Brooks raises a fair question in wondering who the Swift Boat ads will eventually hurt. As Stephanopoulos said, I don't think that service in Vietnam is a subject that Bush wants brought up at the debate.

"If voters see that testimony [against Vietnam], they will see a young man arguing passionately for a cause. They will see a young man willing to take risks and boldly state his beliefs. Whether they agree or not, they will see in John Kerry a man of conviction."

"Kerry's speeches in the 1990's read nothing like that 1971 testimony. The passion is gone. The pompous prevaricator is in. You read them and you see a man so cautiously calculating not to put a foot wrong that he envelops himself in a fog of caveats and equivocations. You see a man losing the ability to think like a normal human being and starting instead to think like an embassy."

Brook's nicely understands why no one really rallies to Kerry's side (until they see the other side of the political fence) -

"Most people take a certain pride in their own opinions. They feel attached to them as part of who they are. But Kerry can be coldly detached from his views, willing to use, flip or hide them depending on the exigencies of the moment."

Well, that may be as harsh the criticism on Kerry may get from me, but there always deserves to be some on both sides.