The Bush campaign runs an ad saying Kerry opposed funding some weapons. Then Kerry and Democratic surrogates point out that Cheney opposed funding some weapons.

Fine. Lovely. Rapid response and all that.

Unfortunately, it's not going to work.

You know when I'll start believing again that Kerry has a chance? When he charges Bush and Cheney with something before they can charge him with it -- and when he doesn't let the subject go until the brush they wanted to tar him with is tarring them instead.

The classic script-flipper was Al D'Amato. In 1992, D'Amato (aka "Senator Sleaze") faced Bob Abrams, a Democrat with a squeaky-clean reputation. D'Amato's campaign found a (barely) questionable item or two in Abrams's record (full story here) and hammered away at it so relentlessly that Abrams was the tainted candidate come Election Day.

Kerry can't keep playing not to lose. He should attack Bush in ways that rewrite the Bush narrative -- attack him as weak on defense (he let bin Laden get away); attack him as a tax-and-spend wastrel; find some way to do to Bush what Bush wants to do to him. (There's no reason he needs to lie -- he just needs to throw the Bushies off stride.)