The Democratic Convention did not produce the expected surge in Kerry's popularity, Khaled Dawoud reports from Washington The Democratic National Convention, which ended in Boston last week, failed to boost the popularity of their nominee for the United States presidency, John Kerry, according to latest opinion polls. Still, Kerry's spokesmen said they are not worried since the same polls revealed that, after the Convention, more Americans believe they better understand Kerry and trust he could lead the nation in its "war on terror", create an exit strategy from Iraq and provide more care to average, middle-class Americans. Several polls, conducted after the Massachusetts senator delivered his major acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, put Kerry three to seven points ahead of his Republican rival President George W Bush. Considering that the Republican Party will hold its own National Convention in New York City late this month, and that Bush has decided to use this month to campaign for himself, while running an intensive anti-Kerry television advertising campaign, Republican strategists said Kerry will have a difficult time improving his standing. And while polls often report divergent results, a majority of them agree that the competition between the two candidates remains very tight, with Kerry and Bush exchanging the lead by a very narrow margin of two to three per cent. So the final result of this contest could remain uncertain until election day, 2 November. And all the while it will be impacted by the level of violence in Iraq, the rising fear among US intelligence officials that Al-Qaeda might be planning another attack in the United States, and new information that might weaken the image of either candidate. So far, Bush has managed to overcome a series of embarrassing reports that seemingly shattered all the arguments he put forth to justify his invasion of Iraq, particularly allegations on its possession of weapons of mass destruction and links with Al-Qaeda. In all his recent speeches, Bush continues to argue that he "took the right decision" by invading Iraq, and that the "world is safer" after ousting former President Saddam Hussein. He also points out that Senator Kerry was among the vast majority of US senators who approved the decision that gave him the authority to wage the Iraq war, after seeing the same intelligence information alleging Iraq possessed banned weapons. In the post-11 September 2001 world, Bush reiterates, he cannot stand idly by as the threat to the United States grows -- he must take action to terminate it. Also, while pointing to the poor human rights record and massive atrocities committed by the former Iraqi regime, Bush insists that invading Iraq was the first step toward spreading freedom in the region, because it allowed for the introduction of a democratic model there. With elections three months away, the US president has no choice but to remain committed to these arguments, and to vehemently reject accusations by his opponents that he misled the nation, or that his unilateral attitude and insistence on the use of force have isolated the United States and raised anti-American feelings to unprecedented levels worldwide. Meanwhile, Kerry and Democratic strategists seem to have also defined the top issues in their campaign for the coming three months. Seeking to dispel the image that the Democratic Party is only experienced in domestic issues -- such as the economy and health care -- Kerry devoted the first half of his speech at the Democratic Convention to national security issues. Kerry's first sentence behind the podium in Boston last week was: "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty." He then gave a military salute to a cheering audience. Kerry spoke extensively of his four-month-long war experience in Vietnam, and openly stated that he would not hesitate to use force unilaterally if he saw an imminent threat to US security. He almost quoted a common Bush phrase, on how he would not allow international institutions to maintain a veto power over US decisions, while also vowing "not to mislead the nation into war" by "telling the truth to the American people." In supporting the war with reservations as to how it has been carried out, Democratic strategists believe they can speak to those Americans who supported the war in Iraq and believed that their country was doing the right thing, but became disturbed by Bush's poor management of the situation. And in view of the 140,000 US soldiers who are serving in Iraq, Kerry must be careful of his criticisms, so as not to be labelled "un-American". In his speech, Kerry insisted that he would only use force when necessary, that he would exhaust all other alternatives before heading to war, and that he would seek to do this through building up alliances with traditional US partners. In his view, the Bush administration has managed to alienate most of its friends through its use of unilateral strategies. So there should be an administration change to restore Washington's credibility, and to develop an exit strategy in Iraq and a more effective manner to combat the threat of terrorist organisations. Leftist critics of Kerry, who agreed to unite behind their party's candidate in an effort to defeat Bush, said they thought the Democratic senator would have enjoyed more credibility had he admitted he erred in voting in favour of authorising the invasion of Iraq. They were also unhappy that he did not openly state the party's position on controversial social issues such as abortion and gay marriages. But in this respect, as well, Kerry sought to adopt a moderate line, to avoid alienating an important constituency among American voters: the conservative and religious right. But the Democratic leader did publicly criticise what many observers call the influence of right- wing and conservative religious ideas on Bush. "From Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday, I don't want to claim that God 'is on our side'. As Abraham Lincoln told us, 'I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side.'" Meanwhile, and as the US Homeland Secretary Tom Ridge announced on Sunday the latest "threat-level" elevation in anticipation of a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda, one question which analysts here hate to debate publicly is: What will be the effect of an Al-Qaeda attack on the US elections? Pundits seem to be split on that one. The traditional answer is that this would play in Bush's favor, as all Americans would "rally around the flag" and support their president. But others shyly point out that the timing of such a hypothetical attack is very important: the rallying call would be effective if such an attack took place shortly before voting. Otherwise, US voters might have some time to question the validity of Bush's main claim: that his strategy in the "war on terror" succeeded in making the US and the world safer.
