Adam and David,I read both of your posts on my story. I hope you'll post my response as well. To wit:First, thanks for the plug. Nice of you. Truly. I would, though, like to clarify a few things.The two specific sections of my story you posted, looked at side by side, do seem contradictory: 1) that the Dems are no good at political theater, and 2) that Deval Patrick "appreciates the value of style as well as substance." Importantly, though, in the actual article there are 3,247 words separating these two observations, during which I noted that Patrick took part in some laughably tame debates, and that his staff made awkward comments regarding trying to run his campaign like a Dean/Kerry hybrid. I also made it clear that whatever strengths the candidates have are too often undercut by the blunders of the party apparatus here: "Fact is, you could have JFK and FDR rolled into one-if the party machinery is missing a few springs, then the best of candidates will end up looking bad."I don't think it contradicts the thesis to that state that, should he win, Patrick will still owe his victory, in part, to the fact that he was better at the packaging than most of his Democratic peers. Some things, after all, are relative. Patrick was, at times, guilty by association (as opposed to Gabrieli and Reilly, who frequently jammed their feet into their mouths), but he emerged from the slapstick somewhat unscathed.The idea that I'm endorsing Patrick in the article is also incorrect. Patrick seemed, to me, to be better at this particular brand of politics than the rest. I don't think there's anything wrongheaded or obsequious with pointing out the fact that he who bumbles least has an advantage.