Believing that Kerry’s campaign is in a total meltdown would be a serious error in judgment. Sure Kerry is trial ballooning to see what works, but at the same time it doesn’t allow for the Bush campaign to know exactly where he stands on the issues. At least some of them, exactly.

To me, that would be the same as saying that Chalibi and the INC operatives knew where Saddam had WMD. And perhaps they did have knowledge of the programs at one time. And I’m no fan of Chalibi or any of the others, never was.

Obviously, the Kerry campaign has been doing something right or else they wouldn’t be as close as they are right now. The way I look at it is this campaign is running neck and neck and neither campaign has any time to take any comfort in any poll numbers. Those high poll numbers that have the president in the lead by as much as 12-13% are clearly out of synch with the polling services that poll on a regular and daily basis. The daily polling firms like Rasmussen’s are the ones who you can count on to be more accurate, which reflect the daily gyrations and use a more scientific methodology to reach their averages and conclusions. And art has nothing to do with it.

Sure Kerry is hurting himself with his indecisiveness and mega trial ballooning tactics, but this also gives Kerry a slight edge when it comes to knowing what Kerry is going to bring up or answer in the debates, which could swing this election one way or the other. Would any advisor want to put the credibility of the President on the line again, in a way that could cost him his job simply because of a belief that the Kerry campaign is just cracking up and flapping in the wind aimlessly? After all we have been through, I would think caution would be the approach and that would take precedence over a short term euphoric moment when the major polls indicate the President finally after months has a small lead. Which doesn’t give him the win in the electoral college vote.

In these upcoming debates, as close as it is, what transpires could be the decisive factor in determining the next President. According to Rasmussenreports.com, there is a large number of registered voters who could spin on a dime, depending on what they heard. The possibility exceeds thirty percent. Which comes to the next question. Would it be enough for the President to say there you go again, you’ve changed your position again, in the face of a legitimate answer or policy subject put forth by Kerry? Attack politics only works to a point, then the rationale for choosing a candidate becomes a search for real substance where each candidate stands. Obviously, the Kerry campaign has raised enough serious questions in the minds of 10-15% of the voters. How else could one explain the loss of the support for the President over the last two years which equals that amount.

Seems Kerry is going to come out and attack during the debates using a myriad of subjects. Same tactics which worked so well over the last one to two years. Kerry’s weakness is his indecisiveness during policy making processes. A real and legitimate argument can be made here. Under the right scenario, Kerry could look very weak, as he has in the past and very unlike what the electorate would expect from a U.S. President. Obversely, a President could look weak if every answer he would give would be the same answer saying, there you go again. TW 9/19/2004 PM