Since John Kerry appears to be back as the front runner and my #1 choice Howard Dean appears to be struggling at least for the week, I figured this might be my only chance to make a relevant and timely arguement of why I think John Kerry's nomination would be a disaster for this country and the Democratic party.
Simply put, John Kerry is the worst parts of Al Gore and Michael Dukakis put together. Yes, that's being a little unfair, but not to John Kerry. It's unfair to Dukakis and Gore who I think always showed more personality and charm than Kerry has been able to muster.
While Dean's speech was the subject of much ridicule after Iowa, the most ridiculous post-Iowa speech was given by John Kerry. Jon Stewart highlighted this perfectly on his show when he showed Dean's speech, saying something to the effect of, "The mood was of course subdued at the Dean headquarters" and then going on to show John Kerry who we would asume would be the most excited. Instead, Kerry was about as dull and lifeless as you could possibly imagine. He sounded even more like a loser than Richard Gephardt.
If this man can't even get excited when he pulls of a big win from being far behind in the polls, reviving his entire struggling campaign, what can we expect on the campaign trail against Bush? Face it, if you can't excite volunteers and voters, you can't win.
Mickey Kaus (who I loath) has compared Kerry to Gary Hart, saying that both candidates look good from a distance, but as voters get to know Kerry better, they won't be that excited anymore. Another good analogy would be Muskie in 72 who had no clearly defined position on Vietnam or distinguishing characteristics other than being labeled the frontrunner by the media and party elites. A long primary season shattered that illusion, but it looks like we might not be that lucky this time.
This wouldn't be as terrible if I could come up with a single reason to vote FOR Kerry. Sure, I've heard that his veteran status gives him the credentials to match George W. Bush on national security (does anyone who remembers the 2000 election really think this makes a major difference with swing voters?), but unfortunately, he's been so cowardly about taking a position over Iraq (at one point attacking Dean for supposedly supporting the war and then for opposing it once Saddam was captured) that Kerry doesn't really seem to have much to talk about with respect to national security.
Slate also had a pretty good article pointing out that nothing about Kerry's speeches or campaigning actually improved in Iowa. Instead, his win in Iowa can largely be credited to his anti-tax message that he used against Gephardt and Dean (claiming they'll both raise taxes on the middle class). Only problem with that argument is that there is no way he can be a bigger tax cutter than George W. Bush in the general election without making promises that he either wouldn't be able to keep or would ruin his presidency. We need a candidate that can actually talk about why these tax cuts are morally wrong and fiscally irresponsible (Dean and Edwards are the only ones who come close as far as I'm concerened).
Face it. There is nothing good about this candidate that will win over voters. Maybe he's been a great senator, and maybe he's a nice guy (although he sure runs his campaign like an asshole), but he's a terrible candidate and therefor would probably be a terrible president. Face it, the same qualities that make a good candidate (charm, political courage, energy, flexibility --all things I think Kerry lacks) make a successful president. Just look at Clinton, Dole, Bush Sr and Carter.