Kerry receives most important (to me) endorsement there is.

They give you a bed to sleep in with the job.

But you gotta move out when you lose the job.

for his opposition to mandatory minimum sentences for dealers who sell drugs to children and for voting against the death penalty for terrorists. They would mock his efforts to provide cash benefits to drug addicts and alcoholics, and his onetime opposition to a modest work requirement for welfare recipients. They would trash him for supporting more than half a trillion dollars in tax increases - including hikes in gas taxes and Social Security taxes on ordinary Americans - while accepting free housing and other goodies for himself from friendly influence-peddlers. They would even point out that, when Kerry served as lieutenant governor under one Michael S. Dukakis, Massachusetts famously furloughed more than 500 murderers and sex offenders under a program Kerry later defended as tough.

At one stop, Kerry accused Dean of “flip-flops” on major issues and said his own strength is “the consistency of my positions.”

I've not paid as much attention to Kerry as I should have been. But soley on the basis of electability I endorse Kerry now.

I dont think Kerry would stand a snowball's chance in hell against Bush, btw, which is why I hope he gets off of our radar again asap. A dissapointing margin of victory in NH and then defeat in some of the states in the South or out West in the next round should do the trick.
I dont think Kerry is electable because:

1) His campaign has stumbled all through 2003 mainly because there was (and still is) no credible overarching rationale or keynote theme to it. Perhaps it was because he was so plagued by his various flip-flops (on Iraq, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act) that he didnt get a proper chance to sound much of a positive theme. But the only rationale he's gotten across (to me, in any case) thus far, is that he thinks he'd be a swell President, himself - and he was a hero in Vietnam.

There doesnt seem to be anything bigger than himself driving him, as there was with Gephardt (health insurance, workers rights) or Dean (grassroots activism, Iraq).

]Now Dean and Gephardt may have annihilated each other with all their drive, but that doesnt mean vacuousness is an alternative. I have the same problem with Clark: he and Kerry seem to be mainly in the race out of vanity. But when it comes to electability at least Clark was a general, Kerry an officer. Clark can claim exceptional, and presently relevant, expertise as well as heroism from his army time - Kerry only personal experience.

2) From what I've read - though admittably I have the disadvantage of not having a TV - he just doesnt seem to be a very sympathetic guy. From what I've understood he comes across as aloof and ... like, he's up high, he's the rich guy. He's not ordinary folk. None of them is, of course, but rule #1 of electability is that you should seem to be. I've also read too many people & posters saying they practically fall asleep when the guy speeches. Now his discreteness might play well in the north, but in the south or west?

3) He's been a senator for a liberal state for what, twenty years? There is a reason why not many experienced congressmen become presidents. There is simply too much 'dirt' to be dug up. (Dean has already started by deftly pointing out that Kerry opposed the Gulf War, but supported the Iraq war, going something like, "way I see it, that makes him wrong twice".) The Bushies will do everything to make this a populist campaign about common folk, capitalising on the smoldering culture wars, and a long stint as Mass senator makes for especially plentiful "dirt" in that context.

but "George W. Bush is not Bill Weld, 2004 is not 1996, and the United States most assuredly is not Massachusetts". In which context it is useful to remember that Kerry "managed to escape with a seven-point victory in a state where Bill Clinton thrashed Dole by 34 points."

I really don't think this guy is up to Bush.