From a Salon article on how Kerry is going to beat Bush, the author talks about rhetorical sparring:

Kerry's best rhetorical punch came in the Los Angeles debate on February 26, when he described his evolving position on Iraq by saying, "I do not regret my vote. I regret that we have a president of the United States who misled America and broke every promise he made to the United States Congress." It's a bold line that keeps Kerry away from his sometimes defensive and tedious habit of answering questions by justifying his Senate votes. Often, presidential politics is like a junior-high school argument: You can impress more people with a snappy comeback than drawn-out reasoning.

Who the hell was impressed by that?

And is anybody buying the bullshit language in this article? Kerry's "evolving" position on Iraq? Vertebrates take millions of years to evolve; positions sometimes take years or months. Kerry's transformations are more like overnight epiphanies.

And not answering the damn question put to him is a "bold line"? What the...?

So according to the author, Kerry is going to win back the White House by...[drumroll]...bringing the national debate down to the level of "junior-high argument".

Earlier, the article said this:

...Bush has begun claiming Kerry has flipped-flopped on taxes, NAFTA, the Patriot Act and Iraq. This will be an ongoing theme, as Team Bush attempts to pin a supposed character flaw on Kerry early in the campaign, like it did in 2000 by claiming Al Gore was prone to exaggeration.

Bush has been "claiming" that Kerry has flip-flopped on all these issues? They're trying to pin this "supposed character flaw" on Kerry? But it's not true, right? Of course, the author doesn't actually try to refute the claim.

After all, sometimes writing political articles is like a junior-high argument: You can impress more people with unsupported bullshit than actual reasoning.