Calblog

I'm inclined to agree. I'm giving what's known so far, a 2.5 on the political Richter scale -- barely noticeable, certainly no damage.

It remains to be seen whether there will be significant aftershocks, though. I think Kerry is more likely to be damaged by his response to the story than by the story itself.

Not a stake in the heart, but a chink in the armor.

So far, the media coverage of him has been 100% positive. Almost ever reference to kerry begins with "War hero"...

Bush has been getting a 24/7 pounding from the left and right the past couple of months.

McGehee,

Now, I'm an easterner who has only ever felt one earthquake (I slept through a couple others of about magnitude three), but from what I understand, often foreshocks preceed a major quake.

Until we know more about the nature of this thing, we can't know what the deal is.

One thing is certain, Kerry is suddenly facing a lot more scrutiny now and there seem to be swarms of reporters digging through his past. Yikes.

John, since you can never tell if a tremor is a foreshock to a major quake until after the major quake occurs, I'm sure you and I are in no disagreement whatsoever on this matter.

Until a major shock hits Kerry, we just have no way of knowing whether there is any more to this than what we've seen.

I've just posted on my blog about what makes something like this damaging. Hint: it's all about how the "victim" reacts to the revelation.

Considering the victim flatly denies any goings-on, is it safe to downgrade this to 0.5 on the Richter scale.