Here’s what I don’t get. Every liberal pundit and Democratic consultant in the Known Universe has said Kerry must offer a sharp contrast with Bush on the war. Since Kerry’s been all over the place — for, against, against-but-for and for-but-against — the Dems aren’t offering a clear alternative to Bush. But if Kerry’s position is really murky gray-on-gray then how can Dems defend telling Kerry to take a position he doesn’t hold?

Let’s say Kerry’s position on Iraq is something like, “it was a tough call, I would have worked the UN and allies more, but at the end of the day it was probably worth doing knowing what we knew then even if it was poorly implented and the post-hoc revelations about intelligence failures are a bipartisan scandal which calls Bush’s judgement into doubt.” I disagree with that, but that’s a perfectly honorable position. Moreover, that’s the position Kerry’s more or less taken most days of the week since he got the nomination. Now: How do you defend saying that Kerry must declare the war a total disaster and a completely bone-headed decision? Isn’t that basically saying the Democratic nominee needs to lie in order to win?

Worse, how can Kerry defend himself for obviously agreeing to follow that advice? This is more than a flip-flop. It’s simply a lie for the purpose of seeming resolute when that is the last thing you are.