A quick look at this morning's headlines answers the question I raised yesterday: Are the Kerry folks "tough enough" to go toe-to-toe with the Republicans? Well, yes, as a matter of fact, they are.

But the next question, which yesterday's brawl points up perfectly, is even more important: How much longer can we get away with offering essentially disconnected criticisms of Mr. Bush and his administration while the other side is going directly at John Kerry with a coherent message about his character and policies that, if communicated effectively, will make our guy unelectable? How much longer can we play checkers while they're playing chess?

I don't pretend to know exactly what our negative critique should be. But I do know that you can't unseat a president without one. And I'm beginning to wonder whether waiting until the convention to unveil ours -- which I suspect is the current plan -- is really the wisest course. (At this point in 1980, for example, I already knew that Jimmy Carter was "weak." And by this time in '92, I knew that George Bush, Sr. was "out of touch" -- that he just didn't understand or care about the lives of people like me. What, thematically speaking, is wrong with this President Bush? I really couldn't tell you.)

Rather than trying to tie this post up in a bow by speculating on what our critique could or should be, I'm going to leave it open in the hope of encouraging a conversation. Why, in just a sentence or two, does Mr. Bush deserve to be sent packing? What's wrong with this guy? And, most importantly, how does that assessment play into the perceptions that the American people already harbor about him? Use comments or e-mail to let me know what you think.

POSTSCRIPT: Yes, there is one critique that's already out there -- namely, that GWB just isn't smart enough to be president. But if you're going to recommend it, you have to explain why that theme hasn't worked so far, and why we should expect it to be effective in the future.

--------