While we have offered numerous thoughts about the Presidential election, most have centered on the electorate and trends. With rumors that John Kerry is keeping his options open with regard to another run for President in 2008, now is an appropriate time to discuss Kerry’s performance and his future.

Two years ago, as names of Democratic Presidential hopefuls began to surface, Kerry was thought to be the odds-on favorite. But through a combination of an unfocused campaign run by an ineffective staff, and a skillful anti-war insurgency by Howard Dean and Joe Trippi, Kerry found himself in deep trouble in late December.

A personnel shake up and a rabid press corps determined to tear down Dean put Kerry in the position to make a big recovery. He took advantage of the opportunity and consolidated his Iowa caucuses win with wins in the first few primaries.

While we were extremely disappointed by General Wesley Clark‘s failure to win the Democratic nomination, we believed then (as we do now) that Kerry was a smart choice to challenge for the White House.

Through the Democratic National Convention, Kerry ran a smart, safe campaign on the idea that George W. Bush would self-destruct himself out of power. And while Bush tried his level best to fulfill that prophecy, Kerry and the Democrats learned the answer to the question: “If a President is a failure and the media isn’t there to cover it, is he really a failure at all?”

Before the convention, Kerry’s only mistake was his unfortunate quote about his decision to vote for and against the same defense expenditure. After the convention he made the mistake of assuming the media would fact check the Swift Boat Veterans before running their lies and distortions wholesale. Neither one of these mistakes would have been fatal without the other. But the combination of the two was clearly a liability that even winning the head-to-head debates could not overcome.

The $87 Billion quote was a poor choice of words, not uncommon in the midst of a campaign. The SBV story caught everyone by surprise. A reasonable observer would be hard pressed to assign Kerry much blame for these missteps. His staff however has some answering to do.

After Kerry locked up the nomination, ending the primaries and beginning the one-on-one race for President, he retained the people who helped him get that far. But it became clear that his team was ill-equipped to handle the negative assault waged by Bush/Cheney ’04. Loyalty is important to most politicians, but Kerry made the mistake of placing his loyalty to his campaign staff ahead of his responsibility to his donors, the voters who lifted him out of the cellar of the Democratic race, and the grass roots who worked for him as if their life depended on it.

As the man at the top of the ticket, Kerry must take full responsibility for keeping the same people in charge who so obviously couldn’t stand toe-to-toe with the warriors on the other side. It shouldn’t have taken a phone call from Bill Clinton from his hospital bed in September to get Kerry to realize that he was leaving proven winners on the bench. People like Joe Lockhart, Mike McCurry, James Carville and Jim Sasso have fought and won wars just like the one Kerry was facing. Loyalty only goes so far. Had Kerry been willing to take outside advice or make changes earlier, he would have out himself in a better position to win.

The most public example of the Kerry team losing a costly battle was the SBV story that was all over the media despite ample evidence that the SBV charges were simply baseless. At the time, the Kerry campaign did not even have a rapid response “war room,” something that has been a staple for 12 years. Getting caught flat-footed is one thing, but remaining that way for weeks, is a sure way to lose.

But there were other examples of bad tactics that are below the attention line. The Kerry campaign’s use of email was embarrassingly bad. They did not learn the lessons illustrated by the Dean campaign (make supporters part of the team, talk about issues and strategy.) They asked for money time after time, only switching the “from:” name before asking again.

Kerry’s speeches accentuated his haughty, aristocratic manner, and were written as if the writers were being paid for their work by the word. Is there anyone out there who hasn’t learned that we live in the United States of ADD, and that brevity is next to godliness? Yet speech after speech included lengthy passages explaining the minutiae of given positions and laundry list complaints about the incumbent. This country is run by catch-phrase, if you have any doubt about that, eavesdrop on a random conversation or go to a t-shirt stand at any mall. And remember, “Don’t have a cow, man.”

For those who followed the campaign closely, the failure to correct these obvious flaws was an ongoing frustration, Kerry’s loss to Bush, the final insult.

John Kerry is a good man who campaigned on the high road. He should be congratulated for his honorable service to party and country. The fact that he came within 3 points of winning with the deck stacked against him on so many fronts is a testament to him.

But he should rule out another run this very day.

His failure to defeat the worst President in U.S. history does not earn him another shot at the throne. After all, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and thought better of running four years later. Kerry will be most effective contributing to the Democratic opposition in the Senate.

The Democratic party needs new leadership and a new narrative. It can’t achieve that with the same people in charge.