Or that is what it seemed like over the past five days. If we are going to write history after November 2 pundits will point to this week as the decisive moment, the last chance Kerry had to turn a flagging campaign around. And to be frank, he tried to do that, he left domestic issues behind and gambled on attacking Bush on national security in a kamikaze-like fashion. Now, even if Kerry had been able to get some traction out of this strategy there’s simply too much evidence floating around that his bid for the White House is doomed. Here are the more salient points:

Women, a traditional part of the Democratic constituency are walking away argues Michael Totten. Times have changed and mother and daughters alike look at security as far more important in the year 2004 than something like equal rights. I would add: there are more women at work than ever, so looking at your tax bill has become far more of an issue than competing for a job that you already have.

Talking about women, THK is proving to be a total liability for the Kerry campaign says Andrew Sullivan. True, and even if she kept her mouth shut it would be next to impossible for her to bridge the gap with down-to-earth Laura Bush.

Glenn has one of the most searing indictments: Joe Lockhart’s disgraceful attack on Ilyad Allawi could be evidence that the Clintonites just want Kerry to fail in order to have a good shot at 2008, and that is a very plausible explanation. I always wondered what possible interest Bill and Hillary could have in a Kerry success and their support to date has indeed been nominal.

Power Line puts an absolute bombshell on the table when evidence emerged that back in 1997 Kerry argued for, yep, pre-emptive action against Saddam Hussein, arguing that the French wouldn’t be of any help. This in and by itself should relegate the Kerry campaign to the wastebasket, there’s nothing to add here.

And, go check out Jeff’s assessment: he’s done a quick round-up too with a damning verdict. The net: he won't even support Democrats on the local level.

OK, that's the right-hand of the blogosphere but on the left side I couldn’t find anything material that would impact the debate and the numbers unless you think that reciting from Kitty Kelley or recycling Iraqi quagmire arguments hold any water. I am not dismissing Kerry as having failed utterly but both the momentum and the numbers are just not supporting any measure of enthusiasm for his efforts.

Next week’s debate on national security may be the last opportunity for Kerry to try and move the numbers his way, but the odds are stacked firmly against him:

1. Bush, while not a great orator, stood his ground against one of the sharpest debaters of recent presidential elections, Al Gore, and won the verbal spar. That should be a strong indicator of his ability to manage a hefty discussion with Kerry;

2. Kerry has kindly provided Bush with such a deluge of material that the President can probably devote all three debates in their entirety to foreign policy;

3. Which is the Republican home turf anyways; and

4. Evidence points to the fact that the Kerry campaign has a major problem verbalizing and articulating its positions. Problems verbalizing, sounds familiar?

If that forecast holds, then by the time the domestic debates swing around the gap will be close to unbridgeable. “Barring any disaster” would be the qualifying remark after such a statement. Well no. If anything of a calamitous nature presents itself in the next six weeks American voters are, in light of the evidence presented above, far more likely to support Bush than Kerry. Another 9/11 will prompt voters to pick the guy with a track record and a plan and it isn’t Kerry.