A new LA Times poll has Kerry leading Bush 49-46, but there's something else from the connected Ron Brownstein story I'd like to point out:

Most Americans accept Richard Clarke's key criticisms of President Bush's anti-terrorism record, but a majority also thinks that politics influenced the timing of the charges by the former White House aide, a Los Angeles Times poll has found.

Nearly three-fifths of those surveyed echoed the contention by Clarke that Bush placed a higher priority on invading Iraq than combating terrorism. And a smaller majority agreed with the charge by the onetime White House counterterrorism chief that Bush did not focus enough on the terrorist threat before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Yet nearly three-fifths agreed that Clarke's new book on the subject was "politically motivated" and intended to influence the presidential election. And despite the attention Clarke's charges have received, almost three-fifths of Americans said Bush's anti-terrorism and defense policies had made the nation more secure.

First of all, as has been mentioned before, the timing of Clarke's attacks has been determined by two things: 1) the release of his book, which could have hit shelves as early as December if the White House hadn't held on to it for so long to review it, and 2) his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission, whose timing was organized by Bush and not by Clarke.

And the "politically motivated" issue is not a meaningful question. That could mean, "Clarke wants to see a different administration leading counterterrorism efforts next year", and since that's a political means to a national security end, it is technically "politically motivated", so some people who agree with Clarke could see his actions that way.

More from the poll:

Clarke's accusations, not surprisingly, have divided the country largely across partisan lines. In the Times poll, 52% said they agreed with Clarke's charge that "President Bush failed to take the threat of terrorism seriously enough" before the 2001 attacks, while 40% disagreed.

Seven in 10 voters who call themselves Democrats said they agreed with Clarke.

(...)

But two-thirds of voters who call themselves Republicans rejected the charge, while only about one-fourth agreed.

"I think President Bush was totally aware of the threat," said Sandra Paul, a retired financial consultant in Wilmington, Del. "I don't know what he was expected to do about it until he had been in office for a while."

By 57% to 37%, those polled agreed with Clarke's contention that "President Bush was more focused on attacking Iraq than dealing with terrorism."

Almost four in five Democrats agreed with the claim, while two-thirds of Republicans disagreed.

In a potentially ominous sign for the White House, most independents agreed with Clarke on both questions. Over three-fifths of independents said Iraq had been a higher priority for Bush than fighting terrorism, while just less than three-fifths said he did not pay enough attention at first to the terrorist threat.

By 42% to 28%, those polled rejected the charge from some Republicans that Clarke was criticizing Bush because he was rejected for a job at the new Department of Homeland Security.

But 58% polled said they thought Clarke's book was politically motivated and was released now to affect the presidential election; 27% disagreed. Republicans endorsed that charge by more than seven to one, while independents seconded it by almost two to one.

A big "arrggghhh" at the end there, see my above paragraph.

Anyway, there's lots more, some positive news for both sides. For example, Bush's approval rating hovers slightly above half (51%), but that's down from the Fall.