Ron Brownstein does a nice job of summing up the issue for the persuadables (more
here from yesterday on who they are):
The parallel offensives [on Iraq] have created an unusual situation in which both candidates appear on the defensive over the same issue as they prepare for their first debate.
Bush's approval rating on Iraq and support for his decision to invade improved through the summer. But they are slipping again amid the rising violence there. And in a Time magazine poll released Friday, 55% of voters said they believed the "situation is worse than Bush has reported."
But Kerry's situation may be even more precarious. Several new polls have found that a majority of Americans do not believe he has offered a clear plan for improving conditions in Iraq. And the share of voters who see Kerry as a strong leader or as Bush's equal as a potential commander in chief has dropped sharply since July's Democratic National Convention.
"You end up with both of them having Iraq problems," said Lee Miringoff, director of the nonpartisan Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. "Kerry's problems are the legendary 'flip-flops' and the demands on him for clarity. And Bush's problems are what we are seeing on the news every night."
In other words, Bush's problems are reality and Kerry's are perception and somehow they are equal in magnitude. Assholes. If there were any more clear indictment in the media of itself, I've not seen it. In any case, Brownstein lays out the parallel arguments on Iraq (THE issue, of course, as if there are no others, but that's for subsequent debates). This helps frame the tasks each candidate has tomorrow night and between now and the election. Bush has to persuade Americans the news stories (and relatives' tales) are wrong, while Kerry has to persuade America his image is due to a $200 million coordinated ad buy.
While the pundits could help by being clear on Kerry's consistent (albeit in my view incorrect) support of the Imperial Presidency's ability to go to war, I've concluded that most of them aren't bright enough to understand what Kerry did with his 'authorization' vote, rather than deliberately trying to help the WH. However, it is clear to me that Bush cannot win this argument (and correct his weakness), whereas Kerry can (but not automatically). A tie goes to the incumbent, so Kerry can and must succeed (but can fail), whereas Bush can't succeed but can walk away with a tie. Interesting positions to be in. Which one would you prefer to have for yourself?