Here's the most important paragraph, the money plank:

-- Stay Neutral in Free Elections: When the United States picks favorite candidates, we weaken the integrity of those political processes - and as often as not, our support can cause a backlash within a populace hypersensitive to meddling by the United States, as it did in Bolivia. -- Support Democratically Elected Leaders: Governments that uphold democratic principles deserve our support We should not countenance mob rule nor military force or inaction to oust an elected president, even an imperfect one such as Aristide in Haiti or Chavez in Venezuela. Instead, we should exercise our considerable diplomatic and moral force in support of democratically elected leaders.

This is an extension on Kerry's off-the-cuff statements to the New York Times about Haiti, and in direct conflict with his three official statements so far about Venezuela (authored by Rand Beers and Dag Vega).

It means one of two things: A. That the "foreign policy circle jerk team" in Washington (Beers, Berger, Holbrooke, etc.) was left out of the loop on this statement, or that B. They were given a chance to have input but were overruled by the candidate and people whose instincts are closer to his.

I find it encouraging because either A. or B. point to a conscious decision that straightens out what have been some glaring and embarrassing contradictions for the Kerry campaign regarding Latin America. And it means that somebody over there knows what the hell they're doing and has stopped the bleeding.

Now, the trick will be whether he and the campaign stick with this position longer than the last time he said it in late February.