Those who saw Kerry that morning recall mainly that he was furious, an emotion, those close to him say, that comes easily to him in times of trial. He thought it was a mistake to shut down the Capitol, to show terrorists that they had the power to send the United States government into hiding.

''You know, my instinct was, Where's my gun?'' Kerry told me. ''How do you fight back? I wanted to do something.''

And George W. Bush is the reactionary cowboy?

This is something I haven't noticed anyone else talking about: Kerry's phony machismo. It's the unexplored angle of his recent NYTimes mag debacle.

How many times do I have to hear Kerry and Edwards force out the word 'kill' when discussing terrorism? 'Of I course I will kill the terrorists.' It sounds like a talking point hammered away at intervals to assure the people at home that the Dems can be tough too.

The other unexplored story here is in the writing itself. Democrats have 'instinctive concerns over civil liberties?' Were they born that way? Is there a gene? Or is it a life-choice?

The President 'recast himself as the accidental protagonist of a new and dramatic national narrative?' You mean he made a conscious decision to do that after 9-11? What other roles were open to him? Hamlet?

I think I need to stop reading these kinds of schlocky pieces. The bulk of it is sweeping and generalized retelling of recent history replete with the hidden emotions and motives of whole classes of people.

Can you really stomach it?