Horizon

Pardon, but can you specify which was the sensible thing?

Sorry, brain not flexible enough yet to come up with a likely word but will keep at it.

Unfortunately, the link now appears to be pointing to a different story. If I have time later I'll edit this. Basically Bush said something to the effect that no-one could ever guarantee that the US wouldn't be attacked again by terrorists, and that it was still up in the air whether or not Al Quaeda could be permanently beaten; not the most penetrating or (unsurprisingly) eloquent comment, but a fairly straightforward statement of the truth, IMHO. Kerry blasted him for apparently backtracking on his belief that the terrorists could be defeated, and made some silly statement like: "If I'm President, there's no question we'll win the War on Terror". I know who I would prefer to see at the helm right now, but I think the American public's unfortunate need to only be told gustily optimistic information shouldn't be encouraged. It's a good thing when Bush has those rare moments of public self-doubt.

The Kerry writers' original intention must have been to point out hypocrisy: Bush expresses doubt himself, although he habitually attacks his opponent's expressions of doubt as though they were signs of weakness. But subtlety doesn't work in television, so the writers coarsened the message at the expense of reasonableness.

So maybe the word is "television"?

If they had simply criticized him on grounds of hypocrisy, I would have had no complaint about that. But the angle was distinctly one of: "Look at this ditherer; we need someone who has no doubt who's going to win." I concede that the Bush campaign has played no small part in creating this atmosphere of more-cocksure-than-thou, and so I suppose there's a form of justice in it backfiring on them. But I still wish the debate could be a bit less jejune.

I nominate "electionism".

Or maybe "malapropriation".

No. "Posturing". That's it.