John Kerry's Woman-Troubles

This is the week when everyone notices John Kerry's woman-troubles:

George W Bush is poised to re-write American political history with the help of tens of thousands of women such as Dina Murphy, a young mother from the swing state of New Hampshire.
By her own admission, Mrs Murphy is "not very political". In the last three presidential elections, she voted Democrat, most recently for Al Gore in 2000, and she was far from alone.
[...]
Possibly to her slight surprise, Mrs Murphy attended a political rally for Mr Bush this week in the New Hampshire town of Derry.
More than anything else, Mrs Murphy was looking to be reassured.
"I don't feel comfortable voting for Kerry," she said. "It's just a feeling, a comfort level. I trust Bush more to lead our country."

Meanwhile, Naomi Wolfe (via Power Line) is blaming Theresa Heinz-Kerry for much of her husband's difficulties, arguing that her habit of wearing black, her insistence on keeping her previous husband's name, and her decision to focus on herself at the democratic convention have served to undermine John Kerry as a candidate.

With President Bush garnering the support of 48% of registered female voters versus Kerry's 43% in a recent poll, even The New York Times has been forced to acknowledge the problem.

As a female, I think I can address this topic more succinctly: it's the "liar" factor. All nutty, hyperbolic "Bush Lied, People Died" invective aside, Bush comes across as the honest guy. Kerry doesn't. And I think men have a higher tolerance for liars than women do.

I first got the "ersatz Nixon" vibe from Kerry back in January. I had lost interest in the democratic primaries once it became obvious that my dream candidate, Joseph Lieberman, would never be able to muster enough "Joementum" to win-over the Michael Moore wing of the party. But my interest was piqued again after the New Hampshire primary, when John Kerry showed up at a press event looking like something from the Awful Plastic Surgery website, and then had the gall to later tell an interviewer that he had never even heard of Botox. It was a classic case of "who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Now, I don't actually have a problem with a political candidate making aesthetic improvements. It's the blatant lying about it that knocked me sideways. If Kerry had simply told the reporter that it was none of his business and, by the way, could we please stick to the issues like health care and the war in Iraq, I would have been fine with that. Likewise, if he had acknowledged having work done and then said something along the lines of, "It's sad, but the reality is that, ever since the Nixon-Kennedy debates, appearances have mattered in politics," I would not only have concurred, but would have admired his forthrightness (while still retaining the right to mock his freaky visage, of course). But no, that simply would not do for John Kerry. Only a bizarre, borderline-confrontational denial of easily-observed reality would suffice.

Let me put it this way: President Bush seems like the kind of guy who, if busted with some lipstick on his collar, would look at you for a moment, burst into tears, and then spend the next forty years of his life trying to make it up to you. Kerry comes-across as the sort who, in the same situation, would blow his top, fume about having his fidelity questioned, and then spend the next forty minutes pompously lecturing you about your failings as a wife...all while continuing to assert his innocence.

In short, he comes across as a creep. A lying creep. And I don't want this country married to him for the next four years.