Is Kerry Sinking?

That's a ridiculous question.

The guy is challenging an incumbent president and is 1 to 3 points down in the latest polls -- margin-of-error territory.

But the buzz among the Washington pundits, temporarily transplanted to New York, is that the campaign is in serious trouble.

They've even started to use the S-word. Big shakeup, say some journos. Kerry angry at how badly he's been advised, etc.

I think this is way out of control. Almost but not quite reminiscent of Iowa, when the press said JFK had no chance against the Dean juggernaut.

Bringing in Joe Lockhart and Joel Johnson is not a desperation shakeup. Dumping Jim Jordan for Mary Beth Cahill last November, now that was a shakeup.

Certainly Kerry has had a rough month. Maybe we're at a turning point in what has been a very static race. But it's too soon to tell, media hyperventilating notwithstanding.

Team Kerry was slow to respond to the swift boat attacks, but it was not unreasonable, for a few days at least, to avoid giving oxygen to a tiny group buying ads in three states. What the Kerryites misjudged was how cable could turn this into an August thunderstorm that washed away everything else.

Back in the 2000 campaign, the press spent the spring and summer writing about what a horrible candidate Gore was. Then he kissed his wife on a Los Angeles stage, shot up in the polls and Slate was declaring that "Bush is toast." He wasn't.

It was only a few weeks ago that the media were pronouncing the Democratic convention a highly disciplined success. Then Kerry got no bump in the polls and the CW gradually became that Boston was a huge missed opportunity.

This is, at bottom, poll driven. If Kerry blips up a few points later this month, we'll see some "comeback" stories. But right now we're one step away from "campaign in disarray" pieces.

Perhaps the media's focus on "rapid response" is somewhat replaced. Christie Whitman said on MSNBC that Kerry has yet to answer the question "I want to be president because --." I don't know whether that's true, but Kerry would probably help himself if he could boil down the answer to a few phrases that don't contain the word Vietnam.

(Kerry just finished speaking to the American Legion convention -- breaking with the laying-low tradition when the other guy is being nominated -- but it sounded to me like his typical laundry-list speech. He even used some verbatim lines from his convention speech. The Fox anchor noted that Kerry didn't apologize for his antiwar comments in 1971. Was anyone seriously expecting that he would?)

Josh Marshall is on the same wavelength, declaring that "what had been a congealing sense that the second half of August had been a bad couple weeks for Kerry had turned into a galloping panic that his campaign is in disarray and hope for his candidacy may be close to over.

"There are articles about a possible shake-up among high-level staffers, blind quotes from Democratic insiders saying that after a couple more days it may be too late; and I've gotten a slew of emails from readers either asking me if I still think there's hope or ranting that they've had it with Mary Beth Cahill or Stephanie Cutter or someone else.

"All I can say is, really, really, shut up and calm down.

"Politically, this is one of the worst things about Democrats -- and it has many sources. As a group they seem to have a great tendency toward becoming disheartened, turning on their candidate, doubting his strategy, doubting his advisors, and so forth. Unfortunately, the candidates and advisors have an equal tendency to be open to that kind of fretting. And with the media playing the handmaiden to the synergizing anxiety, the whole thing can become very demoralizing and damaging for campaigns.

"Many folks look back and say Al Gore ran a terrible campaign. Maybe. Maybe not. For me, I look back and see something different. I remember a campaign that was far too sensitive to the spin and CW of the moment and thus capable of being buffeted by the smallest political squall. This, rather than any particular tactic or strategy, has always struck me as its greatest failing. . . .

"This is not a Pollyannaish post. The Kerry campaign needs to get control of the debate back from the president. And they need to start hitting much harder. But Democrats themselves need to be a lot tougher and hardier about the cycles campaigns go through. And that applies to self-serving Democratic 'insiders' too."

The reviews are still rolling in from Day 2 of the convention. Christopher Caldwell of the Weekly Standard casts his vote . . . for Laura:

"The talk of the Garden last night was Arnold Schwarzenegger's exuberant tribute to the American freedom that first drew him to fame and fortune in California. Every other pundit compared his oratory to Ronald Reagan's. Many Republicans criticized the organizers for failing to end the evening on that rousing note, rather than with Laura Bush's subdued chat. They're wrong. Mrs. Bush's was an elegant effort and her steady contribution to the campaign will be more decisive over the long haul.

"Mrs. Bush is proving, in her quiet fashion, a tremendous asset to her husband's campaign. CNN last week reported that 63 percent of Americans have a good opinion of her, versus 20 who don't. A Los Angeles Times poll carried out in recent days was even more impressive, showing a 72-percent approval rating. It also compared her numbers to those of her counterpart, Teresa Heinz Kerry. Seventeen percent said Mrs. Bush's actions made them more likely to vote for her husband, versus 3 percent who said less likely. The numbers are reversed for Mrs. Kerry: 12 percent say she makes them more likely to vote for Senator Kerry, versus 17 percent who say less likely. By a margin of 56 to 26, Mrs. Bush better fits the public's idea of what they want in her role.

"How come? Mrs. Bush has been helped throughout the campaign by the nonchalant and apolitical-sounding way she replies to questions -- whether, for instance, she thought the anti-Kerry ads posted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were unfair. ('Not really,' she said.) For those who back the vets, this was agreement."

Maybe she should have replaced Vice President Cheney on the ticket.

GOP strategist Arnold Steinberg, in National Review, deconstructs Arnold:

"Arnold Schwarzenegger helped President Bush Tuesday night, but he helped himself even more. First, remember, this speech was a mutual accommodation. Gov. Schwarzenegger publicly urged Republicans to give him a prime-time slot. (This was not the first time he had put the Bushies on the spot: Shortly after his election, he publicly said the president should give California more money if he wanted to carry the state.) In the end, the president's strategists realized the benefit of a strong Schwarzenegger endorsement, especially if it were on message. . . .

"For Schwarzenegger, style trumps substance. That's because he is Orwellian in his definition of reality, which he owns. He is, after all, the consummate showman. But he is more: He is smart. There is no one around him who is sharper. And he is goal-driven. He has better political instincts and a keener sense of timing than any of his retainers, one of whom is Mike Murphy, who also counsels John McCain. And who among us does not agree with the proposition that McCain's embrace of Bush is partly a setup for his own run for president in 2008? Surely, that's likely too early for Arnold -- which means Murphy has no conflict of interest.

"Schwarzenegger nevertheless runs a permanent, full-time campaign operation. . . . Senior U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein will not run in 2006: Why not run for her Senate seat, a nice transition to the presidency? There is, of course, the small matter of Orrin Hatch's constitutional Amendment, which would have to pass before an immigrant could become president. But California's governor is, as he reminds us, a positive thinker, and his immigrant spiel is enabling."

Andrew Sullivan is, well, appalled by one prominent speaker:

"How to convey the spectacular incoherence of last night's continuing infomercial for the re-election of George W. Bush? The evening began with a series of speeches trumpeting vast increases in federal spending: on education, healthcare, AIDS, medical research, and on and on. No, these were not Democrats. They were Bush Republicans, extolling the capacity of government to help people, to cure the sick, educate the young, save Africans from HIV, subsidize religious charities, prevent or cure breast cancer, and any other number of worthy causes.

"The speakers were designed to target certain demographic and interest groups, just as the Democrats used to. The notion that these things are best left to the private sector, or that spending needs to be slashed in the wake of rising debt, or that the race of a speaker is irrelevant: all these are now Republican heterodoxy. The highpoint of this section was the speech of Bill Frist. I've never really listened to him give a speech before and this one was frighteningly bad. He has a cadaverous face and a terrifying smile. His first anecdote made no sense at all. His denunication of trial lawyers -- the one moment when he didn't look like a funeral director -- left him wild-eyed and awkward-gestured. He spoke as if to a bunch of seven year olds in their second language.

"How did this guy ever get to a position of leadership? He's the Senate Majority Leader and, on a bad day, he'd give small kids nightmares.

"When you see who really runs the GOP (funny Tom DeLay isn't in prime time, isn't it?), you begin to realize why a cross-dressing ex-mayor, a dissident Californian and an unelected ex-librarian are among its major spokespeople."

Another Sullivan, Amy, at Washington Monthly sees the twins flopping:

"Even Conservatives Hated Them. . . . The verdict from the Fox News crew on Jenna, Barbara, and Laura is not good.

"Bill Kristol: 'The last half hour did not help, as far as I can tell, Bush's campaign for reelection.'

"Mort Kondracke: 'Those two girls were ditzes. I'm surprised they were allowed on the program.'

"Fred Barnes: 'I think she [Laura] had no place up there or the daughters either. . . . Their mother said they'll be pursuing their own careers. I would advise them to look in some field other than comedy.'

"Now I don't think that anyone -- anyone -- casts their vote based on the family of the candidate. And that goes for people who really don't like Teresa, too. But it's gotta be pretty bad when the message discipline breaks down like this at Fox News."

And the conservative Real Clear Politics piles on:

"The Bush twins were a disaster. I just don't know how to put it any other way. After the first couple of jokes I winced. After a couple of more I was begging them to stop. They didn't.

"The litany of jokes they told were, in my opinion, both juvenile and inappropriate. Even worse, the twins reflected badly on the President, reinforcing the worst possible stereotype of the ditsy, slacker daughters of a C-student fratboy from Yale. My jaw literally hit the floor when Jenna Bush said: 'Since we've graduated from college, we're looking around for something to do for the next few years. Kind of like Dad.'

"I'm sorry, but whoever wrote that line should be dragged to the guillotine at noon today. . . .

"Laura was better. But she still didn't make a connection with the crowd like some might have expected. In general, people like Laura Bush. In particular, Republican delegates LOVE Laura Bush. But her speech was rather pedestrian and the delegates in the hall absorbed it as such, responding to the first lady with polite and respectful -- though not wildly passionate -- applause."