Kerry is loosing because US is one of the most reactionary countries in the developed world, and people tend to like conservative leaders with evangelical style, like Bush. They are afraid of terrorism and think that tough-talking Bush will protects them, just like tough looking SUV will "protect" them from car crash injuries or death. They are anti-intellectual and philistine - they like down to earth vernacular talking guys - and Bush is quite good at this role. They do not like people who are thoughtful and cultured like Kerry because they associate that with being indecisive and effeminate.
The reason why this country consistently elects the most conservative leaders in the developed world is not some GOP trickery or DLC failure to push the right buttons, but because most people like it that way. There might be large pockets of liberalism in the northeast and along the west-coast, and smaller ones around university campuses elsewhere - and many educated folks tend to judge the nation by the prism of those pockets because these pockets are their environment. However, if you step out of these pockets you will find a solidly parochial, evangelical, and yes, conservative to the bone population that has not changed that much since the first publication of "Bobbitt" or H.L. Mencken's report of the Scopes trial.
Since the New Deal - US intellectuals have been fooling themselves that they represent "the people" and popular values, or at least that they can convey their liberal or progressive values in the population. The truth is, however, that "the people" do not give two shits about ideology in general, and especially about liberal or progressive ideology. If anything, they consider such ideology too elitist, too effeminate, to wishy-washy and un-American. All they care about is what makes them look tough - be it tough talk, tough looking trucks, or tough sounding leaders.
So the DLC is on the right track when they advise candidates to appear like tough talking Repugs because that is what will get them the majority of voters in this country. Projecting liberal and progressive stance is clearly a disadvantage because most people in this country perceive them as a sign of weakness.
The logic of US elections is quite simple: the liberals and progressives cannot carry any national election because there are far too few of them. If the Democrats want to win, they must attract a sufficient share of an essentially conservative population. The DLC understands that quite well - it is the left wing intellectuals who delude themselves that "the people" share their values and will follow a leader who openly espouses them. That is a flat earth political thinking. If Adlai Stevenson's campaign is any indication - an openly and unabashedly progressive/liberal Paul Wellstone type candidate would get 10 maybe 15 percent of the votes nationwide.
The US has always been a conservative God country and will be one for a while. Most progressive changes during the past 50 or 60 years were implemented against the popular will, by enlightened leaders supported by vocal social movements, which nonetheless spoke only for a tiny majority of the population.
Wojtek