This morning, while walking in the neighborhood — my morning walk for "health" — I met a lady walking her dog with whom I talk politics from time to time. She was a Republican until "W" was elected in 2000 — she doesn't like him. Today she says "plague on both parties." However, she still leans more to the Democrats, but I don't think she voted in 2004 — didn't like Kerry either.

This morning she asked if we are still having the meeting for Democrats. I said yes and invited her. She then said this: the problem with Democrats is that they are too "wishy-washy." They have no strong message. 

There is in politics a dimension that transcends party and labels (conservative or liberal), and that is perceived strength, or lack of it, in a candidate. I have had several voters tell me that they voted for George W. Bush because he is a strong leader and John Kerry is too weak (a "flip flopper"). The 1948 election has close similarities to the 2004 election — Harry S. Truman beat Thomas Dewey who tried to play it safe and coast to a victory that he was favored too win according to the polls and newspapers. Then Truman took his fight to the people with a hard-hitting, "Give 'em hell, Harry", campaign — and Truman, perceived strong, won — and Dewey, perceived to be weak, lost! Americans like strength in their leaders. It is not rocket science. 

The only thing, said one philosopher, that we learn from the past is that we do not learn. Democratic candidates running, when they do run, in northern and northeastern districts in Cobb County, repeatedly do NOT put their party affiliation on their signs nor their literature. Voters perceive this as a sign of "weakness" and in politics, this is deadly.

And of course, the message is also very important.