It's a feeling that he's a panderer. I feel he talks about what he's fought and voted for/against but doesn't/can't point to what he's accomplished. He seems to take a path of least resistance and claims "accomplishements" are more like "votes that didn't go badly" after the fact, rather than "things I fought for"
I admit I'm a bit biased, I have that "I just don't like him" feeling, but I allow my rational brain to override that sort of "feeling" but the feeling still has an effect, of course.
Here is my example, which reinforced this feeling lately, when a pro-Kerry poster was defending Kerry they took some "accomplishements" from Kerry's blog.
It included: "holding Oliver North accountable"
But wait: no one did that. Oliver North was not "held accountable" he was let off "scott free" and is now a wealthy commenter and <cough> journalist <cough>. That's different then "held accountable".
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about... instead of taking a stand by himself, he will take others' stand, when they are less risky, and then count as accomplishements things that never happened. He may have "fought" to "hold North accountable" but that failed, didn't it? North was NOT held accountable.
Amazingly, Al Rodgers didn't cover this. It's MINE Al, hands off!
BTW: I'll vote for Kerry in a second and don't really think he's too bad, I think he's a fine Senator (too good to lose? :). He's just my fourth pick (fifth if Braun was still in).
I think this kind of deliberation and "count my votes" activism is not too bad in the Senate Debate Society but pointless in a President.
One semi-snarky thing: feel free to bring up counter examples showing his great initiative if you like, but if you want to rely on war heroism... (1) we're talking Vietnam, and (2) they weren't his medals that he threw over, and I hate to put too much stock in that, but it shows he was willing to make a show, but not do the real deal, doesn't it?