Let me start with this: I'm no fan of President Bush II. Personally I find him about as fulfilling as any malformed Hollywood sequel, which is particularly disturbing to me as he's in charge of the largest economy and military in the world (and the history of the world). And I didn't like the first movie. But the prospect of President John Kerry is about as inspiring to me as cold Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, and all the ketchup in the world won't fix it up.
Andy posted a number of articles (at the bottom of the link) that get to the facts of the matter much more succinctly than I could on my own. So I'll stick with generalities for now, which are the feelings that were given voice by the articles above.
There's nothing *there*. I have tremendous respect for Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam and his subsequent protest. I personally see nothing wrong with the fact that he considered the war immoral before he decided to go. To me that's a morally defensible stand, as his feeling that serving his country was a more valuable moral duty than not participating in the war makes sense to me, especially from the viewpoint of "Why is it only the poor kids that get to die for their country?" So I have respect for him in choosing to risk his life in Vietnam, while most of his wealthy peers chose college or serving in National Guard units reserved for the children of the wealthy and powerful that would never leave the country.
But very little that I have seen from his record since that time bears the mark of the same courage, conviction, and capability. His congressional record is that of a man warming a bench. In his years in the Senate he participated in drafting very little legislation (need I say, the primary purpose of the legislature). His stands on issues have fluctuated wildly. While his defenders point out this is the mark of a man who in "intellectual" and considers things carefully, it is also the mark of a man without personal conviction, who votes safely in line with poll numbers. One counter-example I could find was a vote against the "Defense of Marriage Act" (in an election year, even, 1996) but recent events have shown that this is not a particularly brave stand in Massachusetts. His presidential campaign has revealed that his presidential vision is, well, whatever seems to be working for anyone else. "Anyone else" was Howard Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire, and quickly shifted to John Edwards after, using the same themes and phrases they had to describe his "conviction".
The man who demonstrated such bravery in Vietnam, and immediately after returning has demonstrated only safe, poll-driven politics since. I'm not saying he's evil or crooked or worse than George W. Bush. But I haven't seen anything that suggests he's appreciably better. He can talk about policies, but I doubt his ability to enact them, and I doubt his political courage to bother.
The primary voters wanted someone safe. Well, they got it, and little good will it do them. By voting safely they've gotten a candidate with little hope of beating George Bush. And given President Bush II's record, that is a truly sad choice. Now that was a sequel I really wasn't looking forward to.
Notes:
Far too many articles available to list but I'll put down a few to get you started
Kerry's Campaign site
Excellent Boston Globe Series on Kerry's life so far (far more even-handed than me)
Michael Kinsley on "Electability"
