http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8121That’s why USA Today political columnist Walter Shapiro decided to begin his coverage of the 2004 Presidential campaign earlier than ever, in 2002 and early 2003, when the candidates launched their bids for the White House. Before the frenzy of the Boys on the Bus, Mr. Shapiro elected to be the solitary Man in the Van, riding along through Iowa and New Hampshire to enjoy the "enforced intimacy" that a long car ride permits between two men—even two men as wary as a Presidential candidate and a journalist. The result is One-Car Caravan, a slender, breezy, entertaining account of Mr. Shapiro’s travels with the Men Who Would Beat Bush (and they are all men—Carol Moseley Braun has been left out of the picture) and his impression of them.
John Kerry is the candidate whose up-close persona contradicts his media caricature, Mr. Shapiro writes. Rather than a "haughty, overly ambitious patrician who is a bit too slick in his eagerness to exploit his heroism in Vietnam,"
the Massachusetts Senator turns out to be the candidate Mr. Shapiro personally likes best—the one "with whom I would most enjoy going out for a beer." Although it’s true that Mr. Kerry can be "tense, defensive, and curiously tone-deaf," he’s also "a hands-on candidate, a toucher." Most important, the wistful and cerebral Mr. Kerry seems "just depressed enough to be interesting."
(And, as a bonus, Shapiro discusses Kerry's position on the Iraq War--which remains utterly consistent)
His position on the Iraq war turns out to be not quite as tortured and shifting as it’s frequently made out to be, though it is difficult to sum up in a sound bite. Mr. Kerry himself may have put it best when he tried to explain his vote for the Congressional war resolution in October 2002: "My vote was cast in a way that made it very clear,
Mr. President, I’m voting for you to do what you said you’re going to do, which is to go through the U.N. and do this through an international process. If you go unilaterally, without having exhausted these remedies, I’m not supporting you. And if you decide that this is just a matter of straight pre-emptive doctrine for regime-change purposes without regard to the imminence of the threat, I’m not going to support you."