I understand well how Dean, Clark, and Edwards all have a personal appeal that exceeds Kerry's, which has made them the favorites among Kos readers for the past year. But here's why John Kerry is the right nominee for the Democrats in 2004:
The election of 2004 is a referendum on George Bush. It's not particularly an election about new programs, new ideas, sweeping change, or reform. The question on the ballot in November is: do you like the direction George Bush is taking America, or not.
In this light, the best candidate to put on the Democratic side is not the flashiest candidate with the most exciting ideas; rather, it's the most conservative candidate - not in the political sense but in the style sense. Someone who the average American simply views as a plausible steward of the economy and our national security. In other words, the candidate who the great majority of Americans would find acceptable as President.
Kerry has consistently polled highly on the question of acceptability. Unlike Clark and Edwards, no one questions whether his experience qualifies him for the job; unlike Dean, no one questions (no matter how unfairly) whether his temperament qualifies him for the job.
Yes, he's a have-it-both-ways career politician, and more boring on the stump than his Democratic opponents. But in the end, that's less important than simply being viewed as an acceptable fallback when voters go into the booth in November and vote "NO" on George W. Bush.