"Under fire from some in his own party for failing to draw crisp and clear differences with Bush over the war in Iraq, military service and terrorism, the Democratic nominee offered one of his sharpest and most detailed explanations of how he would have handled the conflict and its aftermath differently...Coming off what even his aides acknowledge has been a bad month for the candidate, Kerry is scrambling to regain momentum -- sharpening his critique of Bush's policies and shaking up his communications team to be more responsive to attacks...While reports of a broader staff shakeup are overblown, there are many Democrats who told Kerry to elevate the role of Lockhart and Joel Johnson, another veteran of the Clinton White House who just joined the team. Kerry was also advised to reconfigure the department responsible for managing the message...One Democrat said James Carville, Clinton's top strategist, is urging the campaign to bring on Paul Begala...Several Kerry friends privately told the candidate to quit micromanaging smaller details...There is disagreement inside the campaign over who is to blame for the belated response to the attacks on the Kerry's war service..."
However, the underlying problem is political, not organizational. The article echoes a theme voiced by many: "Republicans -- and some Democrats -- say Kerry has been boxed in by seemingly contradictory comments about his position on Iraq. This list includes voting to authorize the war, then criticizing it and then saying he would vote for it again; voting against spending $87 billion on the troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan while criticizing Bush for shortchanging service members and suggesting he might have gone to war in Iraq if he had been president during the past four years."
But the Democrats can at least draw some comfort that contradictory and misleading statements on issues don't decide modern elections; they're almost inherent in them, in the absence of a deep crisis which forces people to pay more careful attention to programs rather than personalities.
The outcome seems to hinge on where the shifting mood and opinion of the electorate settles in the final few days or even hours of the campaign -- especially among the fickle "undecideds" in a tight race. The Spanish bombing earlier this year was a dramatic example of how quickly opinion can change on a mass scale due to the speed and volume of mass communications, including Internet traffic. That's why a planned or unplanned October surprise, depending on what it is, could shift opinion suddenly and decisively in favour of either Bush or Kerry, with the preceding months of charges and countercharges wiped clean off the public memory board.
You can even see the mood swings on this list and others, among the most politically aware people. A month ago, the talk was all about how Kerry couldn't lose because the American ruling class had decided to dump Bush because of his failed economic and Iraq policies. Now, those who declared Kerry the winner a few short weeks ago, are saying his campaign is doomed because he has not sufficiently differentiated himself from Bush on these issues.
It's still early days yet, IMO, to be calling the race for either candidate.
MG