The Boston Globe finds John Kerry's recent frenetic activity to be a sign of an impending candidacy... and not the local kind. I supported Kerry two years ago (once he became the nominee), and if he wins the nomination in 2008, God knows I'll support him again. But I very much hope that I don't have to.

Kerry should have won in 2004. He ran a decent race, and he owes a fair part of the blame for his loss to an attack campaign that would have been an insult to the voters' intelligence if it hadn't been so damned effective (the fact that middle America could be outraged by Kerry's apparent military deceit and yet simultaneously turn a blind eye to Bush's military experience is quite exceptional). That being said, it worked. And given that, I think Kerry's time has come and gone.

There are plenty of Democrats who would come out of the gate with a significant handicap: Obama's too inexperienced; Richardson's too unknown; Hillary's too... Hillary. Kerry's handicaps are as severe as any of those, if not moreso (the Swiftees are still around, after all). And while his handicaps are just as unjustified as any of the others', there's a crucial difference: Kerry's had a chance to get himself out from under them, and been unable to do so. It's not his fault, I don't think; but he's a weaker candidate for it. And weak is the last thing the Democrats need.