So Kerry is saying that the Bin Laden video aired a few days before the election was his downfall. It distresses me a great deal that he seems to really believe this and he's thinking of running again. About a month ago, John at AMERICAblog wrote a post titled "Kerry Sucked" and that pretty much captures my feelings about the campaign as well. I respect the stand Kerry has taken against Rice and Gonzales, but I agree with John: Kerry wasn't enough of a fighter and, in fact, he was a waffler. Once again, this is why I think Dean should be DNC chair--because he most clearly states the need for the Dems to set the agenda not just be a reactionary party. I think that Kerry was "forced" into his waffling mode by two things. First, he isn't that liberal on some issues, so it was hard to distinguish himself on certain things. Second, if the Republicans are setting the terms of the debate, it's tough to make inroads on that kind of field.
What I mean is this: If "the need to keep America safe" is articulated by the Republicans as the most important issue, then the Dems have to continually answer the question "How are you going to keep America safe?" Thus Kerry's wishy washy stances on Iraq.
On the other hand, if "the need to preserve the Constitution--the principles of freedom and justice" is articulated by the Democrats as the most important issue, then the Republicans will have to answer the question "How are you going to preserve these principles?" And here we could have a Republican candidate seem wishy washy when he tried to square the Patriot Act with the Constitution.
But...Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. And the war.
I think if the Dems can run someone who really is liberal (is there anyone other than Boxer left?) then they might stand a fighting chance. Otherwise they just keep coming off like Fascism lite.