In a recent article for CBSNews.com, columnist Jonathan V. Last of the liberal magazine The Weekly Standard describes how many critics have argued that John Kerry lost the election mainly because he was a “lousy candidate.” In Kerry’s defense however, Last points out that although he ran a bad campaign, on a more interpersonal level, Kerry was actually a very good candidate:

I saw Kerry blow away crowds in New Hampshire. He gave a very good convention speech. He was excellent in the first presidential debate (but for the “global test” line, which haunted him afterwards). His day-to-day performance on the stump was also very fine.

I saw him handle tough questions from voters with aplomb; and when he was interacting with a crowd, his rich and haughty caricature disappeared completely. And let’s not forget his résumé: volunteered for service in Vietnam, saw combat, served as a prosecutor and then for two decades as a United States senator.

Immediately after the election, I kept thinking that I was never really convinced that John Kerry was the best Democratic candidate out there and that of anyone else, John Edwards probably had the best chance of beating Bush. In his article however, Last criticized Edwards as basically all hype and no substance. I happen to disagree -- the reason why Edwards didn’t carry his home state NC was because NC voters were voting for a President, not a Vice President.

It’s that dynamic that leads me to conclude that although Kerry had a nice set of qualifications and can be quite eloquent at times, I still believe that, as his lackluster campaign showed, he was not the best Democratic candidate to beat Bush.