"George Bush organizes progressives for Kerry the way Bill Clinton organized the right for Bush," Robert Borosage of Campaign for America's Future told the Boston Globe. He's right. Just as conservative support for Bush in 2000 was largely a reaction against the previous eight years, liberal support for Kerry in 2004 is largely a reaction against the previous four years--the Florida election controversy, the tax cuts, Enron, the war in Iraq, etc.

But as a Boston Globe article demonstrates, not every liberal is playing from the same sheet of music. Some remain bitter about Howard Dean's rapid fall. Many of these same people are open to voting for Ralph Nader, despite his impact on the 2000 race. As Professor Jorge Rogachevsky of St. Mary's College in Maryland admitted, "I won't back a right-wing Democrat just because I hate Bush."

Neither candidate seems to inspire the base--at least his own.

Kerry is an old-line political hack who has been around for quite a while and done nothing. His greatest strength is that he blends into the background well. You simply cannot win with nothing. That is the problem Kerry has. He cannot energize anyone since he has no positions. What does he want to do? Where does he want to go? Nobody knows. He is the political equivelant of Jerry Seinfeld. If I were a Democrat I would be scared to death to have this guy be my nominee.