In keeping with the apparent central theme of his candidacy, Kerry referenced his service in Vietnam no fewer than nine times during his nomination acceptance speech last night -- and that's not counting the little "reporting for duty" salute he gave before he started speaking. Could have been a great drinking game. And if you included any time every other convention speaker mentioned Kerry's service, you'd have been in a weeklong incoherent drunken stupor.

This is odd/ironic/hypocritical for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which include:

1) The constant Vietnam praise comes from many of the same politicians and commentators who told us over and over and over again in 1992 that Clinton's draft dodging was in the past and "irrelevant," or even admirable.

2) Kerry is known more for protesting against the Vietnam war, and testifying for the "atrocities" he himself admits to participating in.

3) Only 2 of Kerry's 17 surviving Swift Boat commanders support Kerry's candidacy, while 11 others (including Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) consider him unfit for command.

Considering that these Swift Boat veterans' soon-to-be-released book is already #2 on amazon.com's sales charts, I have a feeling this last point may be more important to the election than people currently think. And since Kerry has spent the last six months relentlessly bragging about his Vietnam service, he won't be able to say "well, uh, that was thirty years ago!" if anything negative should surface.

(In fact, in the entire 45-minute acceptance speech, his entire twenty-year senate career was barely acknowledged, in a single short paragraph early on.)

So what else was in this address? Well, much like many of the other speeches this week, the Democrats 2004 plan seems to be trying to out-conservative the conservatives. Tons of talk on values, faith, quoting the bible, tough-guy rhetoric on the war, fiscal responsibility, middle class and small business tax cuts, etc. The last four days sounded more like a Republican convention than the G.O.P. did in 2000! (Read Kerry's 2004 convention address alongside Bush's 2000 convention address and tell me which one sounds more conservative and which one sounds more liberal.)

And yet, at least a little traditionally Democratic sentiment managed to seep through, with vague, general promises that government (not individuals) can solve any and every problem, Kerry continuing to see no conflict in positions such as promising higher wages for everyone, while simultaneously stopping jobs from going overseas.

Was it a great speech? The pundits seemed to think so. It was certainly the most animated I'd ever seen Kerry, though the well-rehearsed arm and hand gestures got a little grating after a while. In the end, I think Kerry did what he needed to do -- rally the Democratic base, while trying to attract independents and disaffected Republicans. With an election this close, however, next month's Republican convention, in terms of timing, is a huge advantage for Bush. The electorate has a pretty short attention span, and even if Kerry's numbers skyrocket in the next week (which they probably will), we can't forget that Dukakis was 15 points above Bush's father after the 1988 Democratic convention (and lost in a landslide), and Gore was 19 points above Bush himself after his convention in 2000, and essentially tied. And Kerry needs to be mindful of another factor -- every time he tries to sound more like a conservative, potential Nader-voters have another reason to believe that the two parties are the same, and vote for an alternative. At least Nader, though I disagree him on just about everything, remains steadfast in his convictions, doesn't change his mind every few minutes based on polls and focus groups, and has the integrity to stand up for his beliefs. If the race is close, Kerry's ninth-inning shift to the political center may push more people away than bring them on board.

Perhaps one of the stranger things about the Democratic National Convention thus far has been the seeming lack of any sort of discussion, detail, or reflection of Kerry's 20-year career in the United States Senate. Surely voters would like to know more about the legislation the senator has sponsored or supported, debates over bills that history has judged in Kerry's favor, etc. I mean, this is a guy who has devoted his entire life to the Senate; indeed, it's the only career he's ever had. Yet if you listen to the convention speakers, Kerry was just a Vietnam war hero, and then -- *poof* -- fast-forward to present day.

Did Kerry really accomplish that little over the last two decades? Or is the DNC worried/ashamed at what he did accomplish? Even Kerry's own campaign website spends a great deal of time discussing his plans for the future, and whole sections chronicling his Vietnam past, but his entire Senatorial career is distilled into a single, vague sentence: "In the Senate, John Kerry fought to strengthen our economy, improve public education, make health care more affordable, and protect our environment." That's it.

It would be like Bush bragging up his National Guard experience ad nauseum, and then saying, as an afterthought, "oh yeah, and I was governor of Texas for a while and even President the last four years, but that's not important." Does it really make sense to base this election solely on the recent government record of one candidate while completely ignoring the other?

In addition to text-based articles, this site is happy to exclusively offer the biweekly Kerry Khronicles comic strip. These strips will also be available in the Comics archive linked from every page. Enjoy!

Greetings readers! Or at least theoretical readers. After all, this is a brand new blog with little to no advertising, launched less than 100 days before the 2004 Presidential election -- and which, hopefully, whose title be obsolete after November. This presents unique challenges, because there's very little time for the blog to build an audience before the election which will end it. Ironically, the only reason I would have to keep this site running after November is if the site's message is a failure, and John Kerry and John Edwards actually win -- in which case the blog title could have at least four more years of relevance.

So although what's good for this site's existence is the opposite of its message and intent, I believe strongly in its cause, and encourage anyone who stumbles upon it to share the blog with family and friends. At the very least, it would be nice to develop a small following over the next three months before Bush's hopeful reelection.

As for your humble host, what do I have against John and John? It's certainly not the name (I'm a John, too.) And it's certainly not because I'm a conservative Republican in love with the Bush administration -- I'd consider myself more of a right-leaning independent who has voted for nearly as many Democrats as Republicans. I'm adamantly in support of gay rights (and gay marriage), oppose the death penalty, want tax loopholes for the wealthy closed, want dramatic increases in government funding for the arts and music (particularly in public schools), and don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of God (or even, truth be told, that there is a God at all.) But I cannot and will not support individuals without integrity (Kerry) or without experience (Edwards) for our nation's highest office. We are in a dangerous time in our world's history, one in which consistent leadership is of incalculable importance, and we can't afford to gamble with shady and untrustworthy figures. I intend on laying out my case from now until November that Bush and Cheney, though imperfect, represent the most justifiable and informed choice to lead our nation through 2008.

If you agree, feel free to buy a t-shirt or bumper sticker! (The prices are set so any "profits" will never exceed the operating costs of the site.) If you disagree, buy two t-shirts and bumper stickers, and burn them! (he, he) Or at the very least, rant on our comments section and tell me why my writings are brilliant or idiotic, informed or ignorant, on-target or off-base. Who knows -- maybe over time I'll be convinced that Kerry and Edwards aren't so bad after all. And wouldn't that make the domain name embarassing. :)

One more thing: if you're looking for more to read, I am proud to co-author another online blog entitled "Ludicrosity" (ludicrosity.com) with my mom, Linda. Some of the articles for this site may even be dual-posted there. But ludicrosity.com offers commentary on more general issues of interest, highlighting not just politics and elections but anything intriguing in this increasingly bizarre little world. I hope you'll give it a chance, as well.

Now let's get this party started.