Bullseye. Why didn't at least one of them have the presence of mind to say something like, "Mr. Bush supports the troops just like all Americans should. This is exactly the kind of gesture that the American people can expect from me when I become president."

Why? Well, you know. . . .

Exactly right, Andrew and Don. While the candidates displayed varying degrees of restraint, none showed the elementary political good sense (not to mention decency) of "me too"-ing the whole thing. By itself it's unlikely to affect their respective quests for the nomination, but as part of a larger whole this sour reaction to what most Americans will find a positive event may merely confirm an impression that will matter in the general election. The best political strategy is to govern well; the best way to challenge an incumbent is to give reason to believe you'd govern well. Sniping and griping are unlikely to sway many in the vital center.

I think it was perfectly well the right thing for Bush to do, however one might quibble with the details or full motivations. (I have a few such quibbles, but for me they sufficiently define the word "trivial" to not be worth mentioning under most circumstances.) In my view the quibbles are overwhelmed by the general rightness of a wartime President visiting the country's troops, however limited the circumstances.

The answer to why some of the Democratic candidates have not been kinds is, of course, that they're playing to their base. Given the number of lefty bloggers, and the typically more inflamed commenters to some such sites, coming up with negative points about the Bush trip ranging from the mildly valid to the vividly insane, this is quite clearly a tactic that will play well to many; remember, it's primary season, not the general election, and if you can't get the nomination, it doesn't matter how you might have done in the general election.