First of, I am a liberal who believes that illegals need to be booted out of America and our borders sealed, since it is quite widely believed that Al Qaeda's new haven is Latin America. This might be a conservative stance, but so be it. Furthermore, India doesn't concern me even a bit. I care more about what's happening in America than show loyalty to some distant land I have zero connection with. I would feel the same, even if jobs were being outsourced to Nepal. America was founded on the idea of checks and balances, and as we speak, Republicans outnumber democrats in the congress. Hell, even the supreme court is more conservative than republican, and with Bush winning the election, some of the newly instated supreme court justices will be republican-leaning, and therefore tip the balance in favor of the republicans even more than today's conservative-leaning supreme court. The ramifications of this scenario are enormous. So, we can't afford Bush's second term. Remember, chief justice Rehnquist is highly conservative, and in fact was in favor of segregation once upon a time. So, having said that, I cannot support republicans. Republican, lying and misleading are two different concepts. As articulated in the book Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, the CIA people had warned the Bush administration not to include in his state-of-the-union speech the assertion that Saddam had tried acquiring aluminum tubes from Niger, which as we know by now was based on faulty intelligence. Republican, because the "slam dunk" quote is from Bob Woodward's book, which I assume you have read since you quoted the phrase, you must also be cognizant that Bush had planned the deposition of the leader of Iraq right after that fateful day of 9-11. In November of that year, the Bush administration was searching for ways to squeeze in Iraq in order to make it seem like Iraq had something to do with 9/11. There are subtle ways to mislead the American people. Why else would approximately 50% think Iraq had something to do with 9/11?? Subtlety is the key here, because not every Tom, Dick and Harry follows politics closely. Whether or not the oil-for-food program will incriminate France and Russia, Kerry is better because he will start with a clean slate, and will be a better communicaator in bringing international community together in order to win the Iraq debacle. That's the bottomline. Plus, check the new poll out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/ Bush was like a deer in the headlights on Thursday. Before the debates, Kerry was portrayed as a flip-flopper and what not, but face to face, Kerry had the opportunity of correcting all mischaracterizations, and he did so thoroughly. Bush had his ass handed to him on Thursday. Expect the same next week.