He is qualified, I won't vote for him, and every charge you've made is true of the entire Democratic party. "Qualified" is not a synonym for "conservative". When the left "Borks" judges just for not being liberals, and pretends in means the bar association gave them a failing grade or something, we rightly go ape. Kerry is a liberal and I don't want a liberal as President, for all the reasons you mention and many more besides. But I don't pretend any of those are matters of "qualifications". They are partisan matters of ordinary ideology and politics.
I disagree with Kerry; I think he is wrong on many important issues. That is all. The "unqualified" charge won't stick, and slinging it to the general public will just make them read his resume. They will not react to your bill of particulars as Freepers do. They will just read them as "so he is a liberal, lots of people are, so what?" You are simply emptying the word "qualified" of meaning, when you say "unqualified" when all you mean is "liberal".
What is your definition of qualified? Senator Kerry was against the vietnam war and lobbied against the government during the war while fellow soldiers were in POW camps. To me that is such a cheap thing to do --allow the enemy the benefit of anti war rallies, embolding the enemy to stick it out. Many POW state that the enemy had radios playing the protests.
In my mind, any person who does that is totally unqualified to defend his country if he was ready and willing to do that to the POW> And the most important thing the president does is to protect his country his soldiers and his citizens.