This is my 100th post, a milestone of sorts in that I frankly did not think I would have more than a half dozen points to get across in this campaign year. But, I underestimated the Bush administration and the GOP. Their ability to create outrage is far beyond any prior administration in my albeit half century of political awareness.
 
Had you queried me on this point a few years back, I would have given this list:
 
Most Disappointing: Jimmie Carter (perhaps closely followed by Eisenhower)
Most Devastating to our Republic: Richard Nixon
Most Outrageous: Ronald Reagan (did he really believe trees were causing pollution?)
Most Devious: Lyndon B. Johnson (I won't use the E-word, but in truth at the time
                when I and all my friends were of draft age and he was sending thousands
                to die in Vietnam, it did cross my mind)
Biggest Joke: Gerald Ford (But I liked him. Truthfully, he was just a bookmark
               until the next election and he didn't do anything really bad except pardoning Nixon.)
Most Totally Out-to-Lunch: George Herbert Bush (a candidate for most devious if he was
               for real. Who could tell with that syntax.)
 
Hero Status: JFK. (Johnson could have achieved this if he had focused on domestic policy
               instead of being led astray by the neo-Liberals and ur-meister Roloff.)
 
But now we have Dubya. He may be in an entire class of his own. Certainly not outrageous, though he causes much outrage. Not devious since we all question whether he's just a well manipulated idiot. Most devastating to our republic? Now that definitely has potential. When you add the Patriot Act, the destruction of the environment, playing the Fear Factor card, his homophobic "family values, " . . . well the list starts getting endless. Then add idiocy and the fact that he never won the election.
 
Holy shit. He has displaced Richard Nixon. I never thought I would live to see that happen. Holy shit.
 
And now, for something completely different:
 
UNDECIDED....Conventional wisdom suggests that undecided voters usually break for the challenger in a presidential race. As Ryan Lizza puts it:

"If these voters haven't decided to support the guy they know best, the theory goes, there must be a reason they are holding out and will therefore end up supporting the challenger if he or she is an acceptable alternative. "

Ryan then goes on to report on a recent poll suggesting that this is true in spades this year: undecided voters in battleground states are very unhappy with George Bush and seem likely to break decisively for Kerry over the next couple of months. Go read. Maybe there is hope.