The Democrat for whom I would've liked to vote is Lieberman.  He, alone among the Democrats, actually 'got ot' concerning the necessity to aggressively and proactively pursie a war on terrorists, and I far prefer his fiscal and domestic policies to Bush's, which, quite frankly, stink on dry ice.
I will not vote for Bush unless there is a pre-election Al Qaeda terror attack on US soil; then I will swallow hard and vote for the man Al Qaeda does not want in office (Bush) over the man they DO want in office (Kerry).  If they are willing to kill masses of Americans in order to coerce the cowards among us into cowering dhimmitude, well, I refuse to be one of those kowtowing cowards...
I know that it doesn't matter to the Bush-haters out there; they would probably vote for Bin Ladin himself if that was their only choice, rather than the choice they WILL have, between the candidate Al Qaeda wants and the candidate Al Qaeda fears.

If his antiwar base does not believe that he will, they are likely to vote for Nader.  I can only judge Kerry by his actions and words, and they are not particularly auspicious for a vigorous pursuit of the War on Terrorists on the part of a hypothetical Kerry administration, if his "let the UN decide whether or not the US protects itself" stance is any indication...

Sebby's view. of course, ignores history; the history of attacks perpetrated against US interests before Bush even assumed office (Beirut Marine barracks and US embassy, US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, 1993 attack on the world trade center, attack on the USS Cole, etc., the thwarted Millenium attack on LAX, the failed Ramzi Yousef attempt to simultaneously down 12 airliners in the far east, etc.), and also, that the 9/11 terror flyers were trained, funded and in place in the US before Bush assumed office.  All this was able to happen because the terrorists, when the faced Reagan, Bush I and Clinton (enough neglect to go around to both political parties here) were free to strike, since they did not have to concern themselves with any attacks against them in Afghanistan, except for a few sound-bite photo-op missiles Clinton threw...
In fact, because Reagan withdrew from Beirut following the truckbombings there, and because Clinton withdrew from Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident, in which we lost 17 servicepeople while killing around a thousand of Aidid's Al Qaeda trained militia, Bin Ladin assumed, and recruited on the basis of, the idea that the US was a wimpy, wussy 'paper tiger' that turned tail and ran every time its nose was bloodied, because it was self-indulgent and weak, and, unlike the strong, committed and brave jihadis, could not stomach taking casualties.

    I have seen the pictures at Abu Ghraib, both the recent ones and the surpassingly more brutal pictures taken during Saddam's reign.  I have also seen the Nick Berg beheading - as have many Americans who are computer connected.  My resolve has been steeled, not weakened; for the sake of civilized society, we MUST NOT allow these kinds of people to perdure and to impose their wills upon what they aspire to; a global Caliphate Ummah.  Remember that India and Southeast Asia were willing to leave them alone, but they immigrated, and conquered, and killed, converted or subjugated into Dhimmitude the natives of those lands, in waves of violence and fanaticism.  This has been their history, and we cannot, for our own sakes, and for the sakes of those yet to come, allow the same pattern to continue.  It was Hegel who observed, in the Master-Slave Dialectic in the Phenomenology of Mind, that the difference between the Master and the Slave was that the Master was willing to die in order to rule, and the Slave was willing to be enslaved in order to live.  But we are something dofferent - Free People - who do not wish to enslave others, as long as they allow us our freedom, but who are likewise willing to kill and die in order to avoid being enslaved by others.  These Wahhab/Qutb zealots believe in two worlds; the Dar-al-Islam (World of Islam), and the Dar-al Harb (World of War).  We are presently showing them that, contrary to this belief, they cannot hope to launch attacks upon the rest of the world from their Middle Eastern base (Al Qaeda translates as The Base), while enjoying the peace of dictatorial domination at home.  We must be the Strong Horse who is by necessity backed by those who wager their lives, families and futures in the region.
    Our position in Iraq is foursquare in the middle of the terrorist region, surrounded by Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.  If there is indeed a Grand Plan to rid the world of the rule of these despots, Syria (and Lebanon) will be next; then, using the Mediterranean ports which would be secured upon their fall, our then easily transported and resupplied troops would march east through Iran (with Afghanistan providing a backstop), and perhaps, if necessary, south through Saudi Arabia.  Democratization would follow regime change, and, once Syria and Iran were out of the equation, there would be no further bordering nations from which significant numbers of Jihadis could flow.
    But make no mistake; this is a global struggle, against a global enemy that has chosen us as an enemy, and thus given us no choice but to succumb or respond.  It will take many years for it to end.  We cannot allow our will not to bow in obesiance to be sapped by time or difficulty, for this is the only disaster that could conceivably defeat us.

Terrorism is born of desperation, and usually for good reason; its adherents know that they are losing, and badly, and doomed to lose completely.  You cannot name me one circumstance in which terrorism has succeeded.
Do you hear of the Red Guards any more? The Red Brigades?  The Baader-Meinhof Gang?  Gone, all gone, with the fall of their inspiring idea, Communism.  The same thing happened to Fascism, and it is destined to happen to Islamofascism, leaving nothing behind but a froth of fringe fanatics yearning for a cruel era and a savage order long gone by - but between now and then, there are lives and liberties to save and murderers to stop and despots to topple.  The idea of live and let live, in peace, freedom, prosperity and personal choice, with guaranteed political participation, gender equality and basic human rights, is a powerful memetic attractant.  It is winning the culture competition by leaps and bounds.  It, quite simply, sells itself - and sold itself to the citizens of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, guaranteeing their demise as Communist entities and their rebirth as constitutional democracies.  But, in the meantime, it has to be shown that such societies can also guarantee the safety and security of their members from those who would still labor to destroy them.  If terrorism was not an option, it would only be a matter of waiting the totalitarians out until cognitive selection took its inevitable toll.  But since it is being employed as a last resort, its adherents must be defeated and, if necessary, destroyed.  As far as the West is concerned, they can continue to live as they want to, as long as they do not attack those who do not freely embrace their choice, but they rightly fear that, as generations pass, no one would want to live their way any more, and thus they feel as though they must attack, as a matter of sociocultural survival - they must kill the painted women before she seduces future generations away.  They employ violence and coercion because they have already lost the persuasion battle, and they know it.  In an era of rapid anonymous global travel and ready access to the knowledge, materiel and technology needed to build WMD's, we cannot simply wait idly by and allow fanatics who are willing to die in order to kill those who refuse to accept their path to wreak their havoc on the world.