I think John Kerry trims his sails to the wind (ah I see why the current metaphor is "flip flopper"). However, the example of the vote on authorizing Bush to invade Iraq is obviously unconvincing. First, as Kerry has explained ad nauseum, the authorization had two effects, first it meant Bush could use the threat to invade for leverage, second it meant Bush was, in fact, free to invade. Bush chose to present congress with the choice between an unrestrained president (bad) and a president whose bluff had been called (also bad).

Furthermore Kerry's one vote was not decisive. He would have hurt himself politically tying the hands of a then popular president while achieving nothing if he had voted no. The fact that he is unwilling to hurt himself politically for nothing does not mean that he is not willing to hurt himself politically for something.

Kerry would certainly not have invaded Iraq if he had been president. Some Democrats would really be flip flopping if they argued against the invasion now (Leiberman and star flip flopper of all time Gephart). Kerry is clearly not one of them. His position on Iraq has been consistent. This is one of the things regularly reported in the Washington Post towards the end or articles which prominently display Bush distortions and tell only the patient reader that they are distortions. In this case the distortion was in a New York Times headline and the explanation that it is totally false in fifth from last paragraph of the long article "In fact, in interviews since the start of the year, Mr. Kerry has been relatively consistent in explaining his position.". (via www.dailyhowler.com of course).