A few months ago, "Anger was a gift."

[Julien Sorel]

We were told that we needed an angry candidate, and one of the complaints made against Kerry was that he wasn't angry enough.

Now, we see Bush and Cheney being needled for showing their anger, both in the debates and on the campaign trail.

Has anyone from the "angry" crowd changed their mind, or is Democratic anger somehow more appealing to the electorate than Republican anger?

[Cha]

1. We had what we needed at the time...

to get Dems into action..now bush/cheney are angry for a different reason..their LIES are being EXPOSED!

[cheshire]

2. I wan't one of those who wanted anger but I know that anger with truth is

different than anger based on a bunch of lies. I see a difference do you?

[Julien Sorel]

4. Anger is anger in the mind of the public.

Cheney and Bush got angry because their policies and credibility were challened, not because they lied. When they aren't being challenged, they lie with a smile.

[unfrigginreal]

3. Bullshit

People were calling on the campaign to make an issue of the lies coming from the Bush cronies. The campaign is doing that now.

[Julien Sorel]

5. No, people were saying the

public didn't want to see an angry candidate, to which we were told, "Anyone who isn't angry doesn't know what's going on," and "The public will be energized by anger."