I couldn't let this pass (though I skipped the earlier post on Kerry's canny prosecutorial choices) -- it's way into barking moonbat territory even for DU. As I understand it, Kerry was an asst. DA for less than two years (per Howie Carr, the amount of time it took for his boss to get rid of him). He worked on one significant case, on which his predecessor had done all the heavy lifting.
I refrained from commenting on an earlier post about his "prosecutorial" abilities earlier as well. From my experience as a OSI Agent in the Air Force, attorneys that only go to court with cases that have "an overwhelming proponderence of evidence" were the worst because that's the only way they could win the case. If we, as agents, couldn't give them enough evidence that there was NO WAY they could lose the case, they wouldn't prosecute. It was frustrating because sometimes more evidence is uncovered during discovery, which won't happen unless the case is taken to court. The attorney with true ... uh ... balls were the ones that would prosecute as case with enough evidence to show a crime, knowing that they had the ability to make it stick in court.
Seven thousand cases in two years? C'mon, it's possible, just do the math.... /sarcasm