I was going to post this on the open thread but it's too long.
I thought it would be interesting to discuss Bush's speech yesterday as a strategic preview. I think it's the direction they'll go in at least for a few months until they see a reason to change course.
The fact that Bush directly referred to Kerry in his speech indicates their concern over poll numbers, as Rick Robinson pointed out in the open thread.
Bush I think will basically re-run the 2000 playbook with some adjustments. It will be about exactly what Bush said in the speech: waffling and "uncertainty in the face of danger. The implication is that Bush is the most strong, trustworthy and resolute, and this character is what the times require. Therefore he is the only choice. This implies certain challenges for Kerry and Edwards.
Aside from external factors like the economy candidate definition is key; it provides the context for attacks and criticism, as well as positive messaging.
Who the candidates are "personally" matters in this way: It's easy to paint Al Gore as a liar, as untrustworthy, when he leaves the widespread impression of inauthenticity. (Leave out for a moment his blatantly unfair treatment by the press and his own failings to recognize and adjust for this.) Kerry doesn't leave widespread impressions of "not being a leader" or not being strong -- regardless of the carping here.
What Kerry has to do (and certainly knows) is define himself as tough, decisive, and experienced. A relatively easy role for him to play. Whearas Gore could never pivot and become Mr. Sincere Truth Teller because he was so uncomfortable campaigning. Kerry will also be forced to articulate a positive message, because Bush hit him on "negativity." Bush will be doing him a favor by forcing him to come out with this positive messaging sooner rather than later. I actually think this may have been a mistake on their part (focusing on Democratic negativity); we'll see if they carry it through.
Again, what I'm talking about here is the slippery, very personal and emotion-laden catch-all concept of "impressions."
Other examples: would it work to paint Dukakis as reckless? No. He's too calm and cerebral. Weak, frightened, yes. How about Dole as indecisive, or a liar? No, doesn't fit. He's too tough. Mondale as a liar? No, he was too sincere. Reagan as a liar, untrustworthy, scheming? Doesn't fit with his constructed image, despite being true. Great job on their part.
Clinton as slippery, untrustworthy? Yeah, that fits, but he was brilliant at strategy and tactics in addition to his other gifts at defeating this. Kerry as a weak waffler? That's a no-go He's a harder target than Clinton or Gore, though obviously without many of Clinton's personal gifts - though his strategic ability may carry the day.
If Edwards were the nominee, I think the focus would be even more on war and leadership, since this is his alleged weakness, with the implication that he is not experienced enough. This is a much easier contrast to draw with Edwards than Kerry. On balance, however, Edwards would have more personal appeal to draw on, like Clinton, to distract. However, the security aspect of the issue landscape favors Kerry.
If Kerry is able to define himself as above, articulate a semi-competent (not necessarily brilliant) positive vision - just to inoculate against charges of negativity and pessimism, handle the press and GOP give and take as he has in the last 6 weeks, and if job creation doesn't spike, he wins.
I find picking greater electability here to be a really tough call.