Strong and Wrong v. Weak and ?

There is no denying the impact of high gas prices on the popularity of the President. It is just another example of the negative economic implications of the Bush Presidency. I am at Oxford now, and this morning the Times ran a piece about rising Interest Rates and whether this will play a role as well. Gephardt might have been underemphasizing the point when he called Bush a "miserable failure" - stupendous might be a more appropriate adjective. But speaking about adjectives, let's get back to the subject of framing the Arc. Bush has defined himself as the strong-willed leader who does not admit to mistakes (or is hilariously not even aware of EVER making them). Fine. Unfortunately, but due to his own inadequacies, Kerry has been effectively cast as weak. But weak and what? weak and wimpy? weak and scared? weak and flighty? weak and terrible? OR can he begin to change this Swift Boat characterisation into one of weak but prudent? weak but responsible? weak but intelligent? Is this all just semantics? I don't think so. The flip-flopper theme has stuck, so the best bet now is to take that as a given and stress the advantages until the cows come home. I wasn't happy with this ending to the draft when I was forced to step out to get groceries - and have looked at your suggestion in the post to follow this. I will let your argument stand on its own, I just mean to state that in every move Kerry makes from now on should be both a criticism of Bush AND a response to his own perceived weakness. The recent "I will not just say that the mission is accomplished, I will persevere and get the mission accomplished" is the kind of rhetoric we need. And it starts on Thursday. And that is why I think the "expectations" game is bunk. Can Kerry prove he is reliable, worthy, presidential? If he can in the last few weeks, he wins. If not, welcome to the "Fall" chapter of some future historians' "Decline and Fall of the American Empire".