Although some Americans feel the Economist has a slight bias to the right, at least in its editorials, I find it to be one of the world's premier publications that is generally fair in both its news and opinion pieces. This week, their American columnist "Lexington" penned an article entitled "The comeback Kerry" which aptly explains the state of the race today (in my humble opinion).

IN SEPTEMBER 1980 Ronald Reagan was stuck behind Jimmy Carter in the polls. His campaign was in such a shambles that he had to sack his campaign manager. And he was dogged by the belief that he was unelectable. All that changed with a single debate—and Reagan crushed Mr Carter by more than 8m votes.

John Kerry is no Ronald Reagan (though one supporter recently introduced him twice as John Kennedy). But he still has time to turn his campaign round. It is true that the Republicans have the wind in their sails at the moment (New Jersey is now considered a swing state, for heaven's sake). But swing voters seem in an unusually volatile mood. Mr Kerry still has a lot going for him—particularly the energy of a Democratic rank-and-file that will do anything to get George Bush out of the White House, and widespread worries about where the country is heading.

How can Mr Kerry translate all this energy and anxiety into victory? This week the Kerry camp produced a surprising answer: focus on Iraq. Mr Kerry had originally planned to spend the autumn talking about the economy and health care. But now—thanks to the influence of a group of Clintonites who have been drafted into his campaign—he has put Iraq at the centre of his campaign. Mr Kerry's pivotal speech in New York this week, ripping into Mr Bush's Iraq foray, may prove similar to Hubert Humphrey's denunciation of the Vietnam war in late September 1968, which narrowed the gap with Richard Nixon.

Lexington says that although Kerry has appeared to be somewhat successful using this meme, it might be difficult for the Senator to keep it up. He opines that if Kerry is forced once again to defend his votes on Iraq (for the war, against the supplemental bill), then this stategy will fail.

Lexington offers up another line of attack that Kerry could use perhaps more effectively while still distancing himself from the President on the issue of Iraq: mismanagement.

...it surely offers Mr Kerry a better line of attack.

First, it is a far less contentious charge to prove. By any reasonable standard, the White House has a mind-boggling record of incompetence in Iraq, from the lack of post-war planning to the disgrace of Abu Ghraib. Mr Kerry can tap into the sense that Mr Bush is out of touch with what is happening on the ground, especially in Iraq's no-go areas. The more Mr Bush repeats his mantra about the march of liberty, the more he risks sounding like a Texan version of “Comical Ali”, the Iraqi propaganda minister who declared that the infidel dogs were in retreat even as American troops rolled into Baghdad.

The article has much more than this, and it's a good read. Overall, Lexington feels that this race is very much winnable for Kerry, and on that point I would have to agree with him. If you're interested, it's one of the free articles offered on the Economist's website this week.