But I agree with you.

And in terms of prognostications, well, I don't mean to brag, but read what I wrote just after the 2002 midterms when all the whiny CW media bitches were worshipping hot money Bush.

This is what Kerry and his campaign should be saying:

1.  Bush is a pretty sly debater.  He sticks on message and talks directly to the voters.  He makes them feel that he is one of them.   Look at how Bush dismantled Gore in 2000.

How it benefits us: Whether Bush melts down or holds his own in the debates, we will not lose ground.  

2.  OPEC, and the Saudis, control our gas prices.  If they go up, you have to blame them and the administration that considers them an ally and calls the Saudi foreign minister one of the family.  If they go down, point out again the closeness of the Saudi-Bush relationship, and the revelation of Bob Woodward that the Saudis promised to do exactly that to help Bush win reelection.    

Either argument, depending on how the prices go (they look to be going up again since the price per barrel is at $41), keeps us from losing ground.

3. "We should have captured Bin Laden long ago."  Kerry has been saying this.  What he should begin to say is that "it wouldn't surprise any of us if Bin Laden was captured during our convention or during his convention or at any time between now and November 2.  Why?   Because wouldn't it be just so convenient?  Just like the many terror warnings we get whenever there is news on the TV that the President does not want you to see."

As for the financial advantage, I am going to go out on a limb and say that if $100 million dollars in negative ads from late February to July have not worked, then four weeks of ads won't work either.   I think Bush made a serious serious mistake here.   He should have saved those negative ads for precisely the perior AFTER the Democratic convention.  The public will have been awakened and knowledgeable of Kerry for the first time.  And then Bush introduces the voters to "another side of Kerry."   By unleashing the ads early, the public has seen them and is used to them.  

The approval ratings and the media coverage is really something we cannot control.  A convention bounce by Bush?   I am not convinced because of the statistical data you have cited in your previous posts.  Democrats, almost uniformly, are supporting Kerry.  Independents are breaking for Kerry and already have strong opinions of Bush (mostly negative).   Further, I read a theory recently that states that post convention bounces happen because the party's base and past supporters "come home" to the ticket once it is nominated at the convention.   For many average party members, the convention is the first time they really see and get to know their party's candidates.  So while they may have answered "I don't know" or "unsure" before, these party members will now answer "Yes, I support the ticket."  

However, in this cycle, the bases have already come home.   So there may be no massive Clintonian bounce for either party this year.  

Indeed, I would say that the Republicans are in trouble of having a decline in the polls after their convention just like Bush's father did in 1992.   The Republicans are grumbling.   The social conservatives will not be pleased that their agenda is being hidden at their convention.  The moderates will not be pleased with the track record and policies of the conservative President.  Depending on what happens, I see the potential for a repeat of 1992 in some way.  We will just have to wait and see.

For each week between now and the Republican convention, what passes for the leadership of what passes for the Democratic Party has to put out a single message each week and then have every single Democrat say the same thing all week.  It is not that hard to do this, it is only a matter of making the list.

These messages should begin with the statement that Bush/Cheney base their whole case for re-election on the war on terror and Iraq, that they have clearly failed at both, and that they have nothing else to point to as a success.

We cannot ignore the environment.  This is the No. 1 issue for a small but significant portion of the electorate.

We can, for example, permanently establish the meme Bush/Cheney bad on environment with a solid week of repetition of simple facts.

We can also do the same with jobs & middle class income. We cannot allow a slight uptick in jobs erase the devastation of the last three years.  Jobs and middle class income should be compared on Ross Perot style charts with the income/profits of persons and corporations closely associated with Bush/Cheney.

Edwards had a good riff on this during the primary saying look at the list of corporations making money off of Bush's policies, then look at the corporations that are the source of Bush's campaign donations:  it's the same list.  This is the kind of hammer that can crack Bush's false but widely believed "decent, honest guy" image.

What this campaign needs is some coordination at the DNC level to attack Bush & the Republicans as Republicans relentlessly.

All other factors aside, I think the most important remains media bias.  We've all noted -- with relief -- the occasional signs of balance in the press lately.  If that continues, Kerry has a chance.  If the press go back to the pro-GOP bias and sycophancy I first became aware of during the 1980 election, then it's all over -- for Kerry/Edwards now, and for American democracy permanently.