The question this morning isn't who won last night's debate -- clearly, the challenger took it -- but, rather, whether Kerry's victory was tactical or strategic (i.e., whether he simply scored a few meaningless points in the fourth quarter of the campaign, à la Mondale in '84, or actually turned himself into an acceptable enough alternative to shift the race back to its fundamentals -- an iffy economy, sky-high oil prices, and a horrifically bad situation on the ground in Iraq).

My guess (which is, as always, worth every penny you're paying for it) is the latter, and here's why: From day one, the Bush reelection strategy has had a soft underbelly -- namely, its utter reliance on their communications shop's ability to create a vacuum seal between the campaign and what those of us on the other side like to call reality. (Plagued by continuing questions about the electability of a Boston Brahmin who wears pink ties and prefers swiss to Cheez Whiz, John Kerry tried to change the subject today by laying out a four point plan to deal with the situation in Iraq. But the important question for the Kerry forces tonight is this: Will today's address be seen as yet another Kerry flip-flop? And, if it is, is there enough man-tan on the face of the earth to save him from the Bush onslaught that's sure to come? Back to you, Tom.) But when and if that seal is ever breached -- as it was last night when Kerry looked and sounded an awful lot like a president, while Bush consistently came across as precisely the kind of preachy, condescending guy you'd never want to have a(nother) beer with -- reality doesn't tend to just start trickling through. No, it comes comes pouring in like a tidal wave in a disaster movie -- and that's always been the worst case scenario for the men and women who get paid to convince the American people not to present George Bush with the gold watch he so richly deserves.

NOTE: Kerry link via Atrios.

--------