Am I being too hard on John F. Kerry?

In the past, I've commented on JFK's endless attempts to be "relevant" to the Democratic party with comments along the lines of, "he should just quit trying to be the front-runner for the 2008 election and unite behind a real leader."

Mimus Pauly reminds us of JFK's past accomplishments. But in the end, the only past accomplishment that counts today is in the recent past, when Kerry let a weak President win a second term of office, thereby condemning America to a generation of being ruled by vile, evil men with no morals and no shame.

I can admire Kerry's past accomplishments, while still feeling dismayed and betrayed by his more recent actions. As I noted back when the Shrub was re-selected, Kerry did not even appear to try -- it was a campaign of going through the motions, punctuated by a final surrender. I don't know what happened to his gonads between his bravery in Vietnam and his Presidential run, but I believe that today, Kerry is irrelevant -- he has proven (in the only crucible that matters) that he doesn't have the "right stuff" to take on the Bushevik machine. Not that many people *would* have the right stuff to take on that cesspool of evil... but it's time to find someone who does have that "right stuff" and unite behind him.

So as much as I appreciate what young Kerry did for our nation, the fact of the matter is that he's washed up and irrelevant, and none of this PR posturing is going to change that fact. Today John F. Kerry is like a 40 year old baseball player who has lost his best stuff yet continues to insist he's still got major league talent, even as he struggles in the minors. Kerry's best use, at the moment, is as an example -- an example of what happens if you take a Democratic knife into a Republican gunfight. That's it. That's all.

- Badtux the "Let's be real" Penguin