It doesn't matter that John Kerry vacillates repeatedly and shamelessly on issues large and small; his supporters will not hold it against him. Under any circumstances. Ever.
A couple days ago, for instance, Kerry publicly admitted that he knows that such alleged allies as France and Germany aren't going to send their troops into Iraq to help us. Yet, one of the very few points that Kerry never moves away from is his insistence that he is somehow magically qualified and capable of bringing these countries to our side in Iraq. Does he suffer any consequences for this volte-face? No. Even though it's an absolute refutation of everything he's said for the past nine months? NO.
That their nominee can change course like he does without paying any price can only be explained by the Democrats' intellectual dishonesty. When their only guiding principle is hatred of the President and their only desire is to see him removed, there is nothing else that matters. That would include the many indefensible and self-contradictory positions their candidate has taken and will continue to take until Election Day. The Kerrion willfully ignore all of that because it gets in the way of The Objective. (For real Americans, The Real Objective is putting a stake in the heart of Islamofascism, but let that pass.)
For example ---or pour example, if that will make you feel more at home--- Kerry refused to tell Jim Lehrer during last week's debate that the War for Iraq was a mistake. That is, until he called it a "colossal" mistake. Did the Kerrion notice this? Maybe, but it doesn't matter if they did because what really matters is that he looked Presidential. And did it matter to the party faithful that Kerry insisted that he will stay in Iraq and finish the job? Nope. They didn't hear that part, even though it's exactly what President Bush says, too.
Don't forget that the Democratic Party very much wanted to see Howard Dean take the nomination. Remember him? Dean was the only candidate for the Presidency whom any Democrat ever had any real passion for. Why? Because Dean was genuinely anti-war. Kerry wasn't. Edwards wasn't. And Dean was leading the pack there for quite a while. Until the Democrats realized that they needed to find a candidate whose resume could trump Bush's in one particular: military experience. And Kerry fit the bill even better because he had anti-war credentials from 35 years before. Never mind that, for the six years before Dean came along, Kerry had been as outspoken as any Democrat on the need to remove Saddam Hussein. What mattered now was that Kerry had to find some way to co-opt the Dean anti-war message if he wanted a chance at the nomination. And that is what Kerry did. He stole that support to get ahead.
What does John Kerry really believe about the War for Iraq? No question in today's political scene matters less. Not just because it is irrelevant to the machinations of both the Democratic Party and Kerry himself, but because it is a boring parlor game. If he had a legitimately held position, it would be of very great interest, both contemporarily and historically. But it is a footnote to us because it is an afterthought to him.
There is no pressure on John Kerry. He can say or do anything he pleases now and he will still stumble upon roughly half of the electorate's "approval." That should be a liberating feeling. Tomorrow's debate will tell.