Sometimes you have to look at the Bush and Kerry numbers as separate entities. The Swifties seem to have put a temporary dent in Kerry's numbers (though certainly nothing disastrous) but Bush isn't getting ANY TRACTION, and he's now through half of the most important month of his campaign (August 15-September 15). Bush's job approval number, which is more important than his favorability number, has actually ticked down in the two most recently released polls (Gallup and NBC/WSJ). With the exception of the LA Times, which has Bush picking up 3 points, zero national polls have statistically significant gains for Bush.

Bush was supposedly gonna be fleshing out an agenda in August, and that never happened. People don't feel any better about George, the direction of the country, or his policies. Right now, the only thing people are thinking about in regards to Bush is that he's running a smear campaign. That may not have shown up in the polling yet, but it also may account for why Bush isn't moving. We're in a period of "national pride" during the olympics, that almost inevitably--even though we never expect it--produce a little bump for a sitting president. Bush has also spent $45 million on ads this month, including some of his first positive advertising since March. And the Repubs took what may have been their single most damaging shot at Kerry, and frankly, it nicked him, but didn't sink him, and we don't know yet that any long term damage has been done.

You also have to have a historical perspective. You can look at an Annenberg poll that shows Bush leading amongst vets 56-38, and think it's a disaster, but in fact, what it actually shows is Kerry taking a larger percentage of vets than any Democratic candidate in recent memory. Do you have any idea how fucked Bush is if he only wins 55% of vets? He won the group nationally by well over 20 points in 2000 and lost the popular vote. Moreover, the same survey suggests that the Kerryc campaign has basically succeeded in discreding SBVT, and also suggests that Kerry's favorables amongst Vets have retained a bump from the convention.

I know you think that the response to the Swifties could have been better, and I don't wholly disagree, but you're not listing a realistic alternative. Kerry could not really have minimized this thing--this story was a classing for the age of 24/7 cable news. Is it fucked up? You bet. But sadly, it's also reality. Kerry hitting back with an AWOL ad would have done more harm than good right now. There may be a place for such an ad later in the campaign, but now it's it. It would have ceded the moral high ground, just before the RNC, basically giving Bush a free pass to spend 4 days slamming Kerry with no potential public or media backlash. The media is bad enough right now, making a moral equivalency between SBVT and Moveon; I'm not sure you realize the full extent to which Kerry would have been trashed for complaining about the Swifites, while running  a 527 attack ad against Bush. As far as the SCLM is concerned, it doesn't matter that there's factual evidence that Bush was AWOL and factual evidence that the Swifties are lying. We live in the era of equal time. Yes, we need to work to change that, but we also have to realistically understand the current dynamic.

You've also got to keep in mind the timing. The response to this thing would probably have been different if the convention weren't upon us. But it is, and that's significant. Because Bush isn't going into it having laid the foundation for his new "agenda"; rather, he goes into it with 50% of the public thinking he's personally responsible for a smear campaign against a man who served honorably. There's a reason why many Repub strategists are publicly stating that Bush needs to get away from the issue. What the Kerry campaign has been engaging in is an act of priming. Bush is now much more hard pressed to be overly negative without doing himself some damage.

It hasn't been a perfect August. But if you think that Bush's position in this race is strong, you're absolutely incorrect. Kerry also has some work to do. But the dynamic is still against George--he's the incumbent, and folks don't like him or his policies. That's a tough fight to win. The "my challenger is unacceptable" has not been successful for incumbents running in competetive races. It didn't work against Jimmy Carter; it didn't work against Ronald Reagan; and it didn't work against Bill Clinton. Not saying it can't work, but it's not a strategy I'd want to bank on, even though it creates lots of nervous folks along the way.