This year's race for the United States Senate seat from Massachusetts, one of the most prominent and hotly contested in the nation, features two intelligent and talented public officials. Our support for each candidate in past elections makes the choice between them a close call. Even as we regret siding against a Harvard alum, let alone at the hands of an Eli, we endorse the reelection of John F. Kerry to the U.S. Senate.

While both Kerry and Gov. William F. Weld '66 have engaged in a tireless battle to capture the center of Massachusetts politics, there remain real differences between the candidates. These differences loom especially large given the probability of a divided 105th Congress. We choose to endorse Kerry because we think he is the best person for the job, especially when it comes to the important issues of education, the environment and health care.

Senator Kerry has planted himself at the political center of the Democratic party. He has taken liberal positions as an ardent supporter of environmental protection legislation and a believer in a strong social safety net. However, Kerry was a deficit hawk even before it was in style. As a proponent of balancing the budget in seven years, he has the credentials of a fiscal moderate.

Even if he has kept a low profile, Senator Kerry has emerged from his second term with an impressive record of behind-the-scenes successes. A pivotal player in the 1994 Crime Bill, Kerry successfully incorporated crucial funding increases. An investigation he sponsored led to the uncovering of the BCCI scandal, and as Chair of the Select Committee on POW/MIA affairs, Kerry led the campaign for information about missing veterans which ultimately led to the normalization of relations with Vietnam.

While a relative liberal within the Republican party, Governor Weld adheres to many of its core values. As senator, he would inevitably add his voice--and vote--to the misguided consensus among conservatives that government is the source of the nation's ills, and that if we only enacted a broad program of deregulation and funding cuts, the country would be revitalized.

Weld has taken a harsh line on welfare, spoken favorably of Bob Dole's irresponsible tax cutting plan and been lukewarm in his support for sustaining government's role in education. He has taken a superficial approach to combatting crime, calling for stiffer sentences and manadatory minimums while ignoring the roots of the problem. His stand against the Republican convention sent an important message to the right wing of the party; however, his resounding endorsement of Dole for president and his refusal to rule out supporting Senator Jesse Helms as Foreign Relations Committee chair were less impressive moves.

Weld is the best Republican senatorial candidate that Massachusetts and seen in some time. Still, his vision, however moderate, insufficiently protects the least fortunate in our society. With Massachusetts' traditional commitments to opportunity and social justice, Kerry is the better candidate for the state.