On the other hand, according to the Christian Science Monitor, "women are edging toward Bush. Kerry, despite being the candidate of the party that is strongest on the issues traditionally important to women--like healthcare, education, children's welfare, and so on--is being beaten up with the security issue. Women are concerned for their families, and they see Bush as having more "moral clarity." They see him as the candidate who will keep them safer. Of course, if Kerry had more than just a gram (if that) of an alternative vision for what creates security, he could (in my humble opinion) grab the lead again by pointing out, forcefully and at every opportunity, that Bush has actually made the U.S. less secure--not just by alienating our traditional allies, but also by confirming the Muslim perception that the United States is out to conquer Muslim countries and destroy Islam. He could point out that, by invading and occupying Iraq without changing any of the intrusive interventionist policies that have caused so much resentment and anger in the Muslim world, he is actually increasing the possibility--indeed, the certainty--of another attack inside the United States--one that will eclipse 9/11.

Or maybe not. Maybe women, along with other Americans, are just too stuck on the second level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs to see anything else.