Well, the voters have spoken: Kerry's the one. And they're probably right. On balance, Kerry was--is--the best candidate of those available. Richard Gephardt was old news and would have been chopped up for his positions on tax cuts and health care. Howard Dean was an undisciplined campaigner who was easy to typecast as being too extreme. Wes Clark was not ready for prime time. And John Edwards lacked the gravitas, experience and national security street cred to beat Bush.

So that leaves John Kerry. And that's what we got. I agree with Josh Marshall: Kerry is a very solid candidate and he will--very importantly--not give up on beating Bush until the last dog dies. The guy's a fighter and we're going to need that in this election. Someone who fades down the stretch would be disastrous. Kerry won't.

What should we do now? Get and wear your Kerry buttons, sign up as volunteers, etc. And (very important!) send money. As LiberalOasis argues, the "$100 revolution" started by Howard Dean shouldn't stop; it should continue as Kerry faces off against Bush. Kerry needs both the money and the type of grassroots politics those small donations promote. Click here to make your contribution. (I did!)

What should Kerry do now? I had some advice for him awhile ago that still seems reasonable. And my post from yesterday tells him what his target should be: independent voters, who are ripe for the picking. Democrats and Republicans are likely to be about equally polarized for their candidates, so it's up to the independents. Think of it as the national equivalent to the Ohio test. Just as Kerry is very likely to win the election if he can win Ohio, so is he very likely to win the election if he can win independents nationally.

In 1992, Clinton won independents by 6 points and in 1996 he carried them by 8 points. Kerry doesn't need to win by that much. A couple of points should be more than adequate. Given how fed up independent voters seem with Bush these days, that hardly seems an insurmountable obstacle.