http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10637-2004Jul24.html
The first half of this is especially good. It reads like a section of a Robert Caro book, and it's very much a Caro-type story. Hard as it is to believe now, Kerry was originally known for his charisma and boldness and power to move crowds! But he lost his first election doing that shtick, he lost royally, and he then went through what seems like a George Foreman transformation in reverse. He drew the lesson that he needed to be the opposite to win high office, and bent himself with iron will over many years until the opposite is exactly what he became: a man trapped in a suit of caution he can never take off. But also, he probably thinks to himself, a man who has won elections for 20 years, where the other style won exactly none.
The second half of the article isn't quite as good (I suspect deadline pressure), but I thought it contained of many other illuminating continuties and transformations that it is up to the reader to relate to the present -- like Kerry's relation to his war record. There is nothing new here; this dog has been hunting for him in exactly this fashion from the very first election he won. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he plans to reenact his first campaign: to allow Bush to attack his record without response and then make an issue of it with a gotcha at the end. He does have a consistent record for late surges.
Anyway, I found it worthwhile, even though it's long, and even though you have to supply the analysis yourself.
Michael