Mickey Kaus argues here and here that Democrats ought to be grateful John Kerry lost four years ago. Kaus: "What would have happened if Kerry had won? 1) He would have presided over a slow motion loss, or continuing stalemate, in Iraq. No way Kerry would ever have approved the "surge." 2) He would also have presided over the current housing and financial collapse that has both broken economic growth and, apparently, destroyed any chances of the incumbent party retaining the White House. Democrats don't bear the main blame for this crisis, but is there any reason to think they would have prevented it? I can't think of one." Nor can I! Sure, hindsight is twenty-twenty, history is filled with contingencies, blah blah blah. But it's certainly unlikely that the Democrats would have taken Congress in 2006 had Kerry been presiding over a bloodbath in Iraq. Also, Kerry should be happy with the fact that he lost. Because he was an Obama early adopter, he stands a good chance of becoming the next secretary of state. That's probably not good for America or the world. But it is good for Kerry's resume.