No, quite the opposite to my mind.
What Kerry's response to the terror threat would be, as I've pointed out, no one knows. He's claimed he will cut and run and he's claimed he'll send more soldiers (presumably draftees) to Iraq. He said he will fight the WoT as thoroughly as Bush and he's called for a kinder and gentler WoT.
That his policies would at best be the same as Bush is certain, but one can easily argue he would be as incompetent as Clinton, or frankly, perhaps even worse.
While the press would indeed give him a free hand to continue the Bush doctrine, it would also give him a free hand in following the Clintonite ostrich strategy. Any further terror attacks would be blamed on domestic rightwingers (a la the anthrax mailings) or pawned off as residual anger from Bush's policies.
Especially the former angle is worrisome. Clinton famously blamed the OKC bombing on his political opponents. One can easily see Kerry doing the same, and following up on the advice many on the Left have made to crack down on rightwing groups (pro-lifers, RKBA activists, etc).
Just look around at the political landscape today and think of all the complaints you hear from leftists about the Patriot Act, the shortage of flu vaccines, etc. Then go back and try to remember if you heard even a peep from any of these people after the Clinton administration incinerated those 88 Branch Davidians in Texas.
Clinton and Bush offer a good point of contrast. If you were Osama bin Laden, who would you fear more -- the President who came at you with a vengeance after you killed 3,000 Americans or the one who tried to kill you just to get his impeachment hearings off the front page of the newspaper?