Makes you wonder what happened to that young man. He seemed very clear and direct and over the years he's become reserved and rambling. Something happened to Kerry between 1971 and 2004.
When he was young, Kerry could be admired for the stand he took, even if one disagreed with it. He has lost that, exchanging it for political power. As for substance, though, what is there? When a person's "claim to fame" is a demonstration AGAINST something, rather than working FOR anything, what can such a person provide of a positive nature? In Kerry's case, nothing. His record proves it. I get the impression that his success lies in the accident of his birth to wealth in a liberal stronghold. 20 years in the Senate, and NO defining legislation bearing his name. What has he actually contributed to the good of this country, or of his state (oops, sorry, Commonwealth)? What does he stand for but himself? Talented? Perhaps, but where is the fruit of this talent? This is my problem with this candidate. He has not staked himself out on ANY position, preferring instead the comfort of taking every position, or no position. How, 6 weeks from an election, can anyone support him when has no firm plan on anything? The only answer, of course, is that he is NOT supported by anyone. He is a mere placeholder for hatred of President Bush.