CNN Headline News is reporting that in the closing two months of the campaign, John Kerry's campaign will change to an "attack" stance, firing back heavily at all the negative statements Bush, the Swiftboat Veterans and others have been making about him. Last night on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberman, it was reported that Kerry has been quite angry with his campaign director, Mary Beth Cahill, over her advice to not answer many of the Republican attacks. Perhaps Cahill's rationale was that by answering them you only give them credence. But the fact remains that Kerry is so upset that he has, in effect, demoted Cahill, bringing in folks like Democratic National Committee General Election Manager John Sasso and former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart to advise him and manage his campaign. Frankly, I think this is long overdue. They really haven't been hammering Bush much, and they do need to defend themselves more. I don't know, for example, that I've heard anybody connected with the Kerry campaign explain his supposed "voting against" the $87 billion to equip our troops in Iraq. And the constant repetition of misleading statements like that one will sooner or later stick in the minds of the undecided and the uninformed. I don't think Kerry should go completely negative. The opposite side of this equation is that people have (legitimately, I think) complained that he has failed to articulate what he would do as president. He needs to lay out his plans for the future in some detail. Clinton was right: get off the Vietnam hobby horse, and start talking about things that matter to people, like whether they'll be able to keep their jobs. What do y'all think of this change in strategy?