Over at his site, Hugh Hewitt is holding a symposium on the following question: "What do Kerry's answers to today's press inquiries tell us about Kerry's worldview and character?" The transcript of Kerry's remarks to the press, upon which this post is based, can be found at his site.

Three observations:

(1)Near the end of the material quoted on Hugh's site, Kerry notes that, "It is completely consistent that you can see [Saddam] as a threat and deal with him realistically just as we saw the Soviet Union and China and others as threats and have dealt with them in other ways."

Comparing terrorism with the USSR and China speaks volumes about Kerry's worldview -- that he has failed to understand the crucial difference between the Islamofascist threat and every other that America has faced; even Communists and Nazis didn't embrace death as an unequivocal religious good. That's why the mere fact that the United States possesses fearsome weapons constitutes a deterrent as far as these countries are concerned. Islamofascism isn't comparable -- there is no meaningful deterrence because they don't care if even children die. That's what makes preemption so important -- and why it can't be left up to a "global test." If he can't get the difference between China, say, and Al Qaeda, no wonder he can't understand the importance of preemption.

(2) Kerry's vanity is monumental. Does he believe that it is actually sufficient to assert, without more, that "I have a plan" [for addressing Iraq]. . . "I know that my plan has a better chance of working" . . . "I will make sure that we are successful, and I know exactly what I am going to do and how to do it" ? In John Kerry's world, does such boasting actually pass for a policy?

Either he is so isolated and self-deluded that he thinks this content-less drivel actually constitutes a "plan," or else he is so contemptuous of the American people that he believes that these deeply unserious assertions are enough to secure him their support. Neither self-delusion nor contempt for the electorate is a desirable quality in a President.

(3) On some level, Kerry knows he's lying. The judge for whom I clerked once noted that, when an appellant or appellee stated in oral argument, "It is clear that . . ." the use of the phrase was a signifier that the following proposition was anything but clear. Kerry refers to himself as having been "consistent" on precisely the issues about which he's been most inconsistent -- namely (a) whether Saddam Hussein presented a threat; (b) how he had "laid out to the president how to deal with Saddam Hussein"; and that (c) "you can see [Saddam] as a threat and deal with him realistically . . ."

Kerry seems to think that simply describing himself as "consistent" will make it so. Again, either such overweening vanity that he is unable to see himself as anything but right in all circumstances, or else such contempt for his listeners that he thinks they won't know the difference.

My guess is that the former (excessive vanity) is the right diagnosis. Why? Because Kerry consistently accuses the President of being incapable of admitting error or fault no matter what the circumstances. Senator Kerry, it's called projection.