Why Saddam's capture hurts the candidates running on military credentials

The capture of Saddam Hussein is seen as a victory for Bush. This gives him more credibility with voters on defense and military issues. Anyone who has this at the top of their list of issues is NOT going to vote for a Democrat over Bush on this issue because Bush has caught one of the "boogeymen". Anyone running on military/defense records is playing into Bush's hand because it will only give him more opportunity to claim victory. Who needs a different military guy if Bush can catch Saddam?

The only way the Democrat is going to win is to focus on Domestic Issues and have a strong record and agenda for balancing the budget and addressing domestic concerns. Of all the candidates, Dean is the one best prepared to successfully challenge Bush. He has a great record from Vermont and a proven ability to frame the debate and get the focus on whatever it is HE wants the focus to be about.

If Democrats try to make this a debate about who is a better military leader they guarantee a Bush win in 2004. We NEED someone who is stong on Domestic Issues because that's what will win.

That pushes Clark and Kerry to the forefront. The rest is all a sideshow, it's not like any of the candidates can magically fix the economy and create jobs; considering their plans don't really differ from each other.

On Edit:

How can Military Credentials hurt?

Now he's got a trump card. On top of that, Clark and Kerry have been talking in opposition of the war in Iraq just as much as Dean has been. Bush will crucify them over it. What else do either of them have to bring to the table? If this election ends up being just about Iraq Democrats are going to lose. The ONLY thing Bush has any kind of legitimacy on is his hard line on fighting terror and going after the bad guys. When he miraculously finds Osama's remians and captures Omar right before the general election (mark my word, it's coming) no one will be able to compete with that UNLESS they focus on domestic issues. That's the ONLY shot the Democrats have and Howard Dean is the best one to do it.

Capturing Saddam will not magically solve Iraq. Clark still has his credentials of putting Kosovo back together again.

If you think this election is about domestic policy, you haven't seen the scheduling of the RNC convention. The last day of the RNC convention is scheduled to fall on September 11, 2004 in NYC. This election is NOT about domestic policy.

Because if they allow Bush to make it about defense and the war on terror he's going to be re-elected.

But you NEED to be able to offset the military angle if you even want a chance to be heard on the domestic issues. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

The dem nominee can have military credentials and attack Bush on domestic policy. But if you don't have military credentials, you can't even pay the door charge to get in the debate.

Make no mistake, whether you choose to attack Bush on the military/foreign policy/national security issue or not, you need to be able to at least negate it. If you can't negate it, you're going to get mauled.

On September 11, 2004, what do you think people will be thinking about? Anything you see today will be magnified 100 times.

not just votes. The way to defeat Bush is to nominate Dean with Clark as the VP. We have to go after Bush where he is weak with a full frontal attack. We NEED someone who is able to control what is and isn't the topic of debate. Dean does that so well. With Clark as the VP the ticket has that ability you mention. If Democrats just throw Clark or Kerry out as the nominee without putting serious thought into this, the party is doomed. Every poll I've seen shows that voters are most concerned about Domestic Issues. Yes, defense and foreign policy is important but not AS important as domestic issues. It's got to be Dean/Clark to win. It's the only way and it has to be in that order. It can't be Clark/Dean because Clark has absolutely no experience with balancing budgets and domestic policy. Kerry can't even get himself into the top tier among Democrats nationally and Clark trumps him with the military/defense/foreign policy experience. Dean trumps Kerry on domestic issues. In light of recent developments, our only chance is going to be Dean/Clark, period.

No one votes for the VP (except the people in his state). If you think that Clark as VP will innoculate Dean, you're wrong.

The dem nominee is vying for the title of Commander-in-chief, not his VP. If you think people will put domestic issues over national security after September 11, I disagree. Clinton is right. The dem nominee (not his VP) has to be able to get over the national security threshold. And ONLY then will people look at his domestic policy arguments.

Clark was not a governor but he has dealt with domestic programs. His experience has been compared to that of a governor rather than a legislator. I agree that we need to pound home the domestic policy issues, but we can only do that if we can get over the national security hurdle. Otherwise, everytime the dem nominee speaks about domestic issues, the reporters will ignore it and harp on his lack of national security credentials. And you know what? It will resonate with voters because of September 11th.

The ONLY chance we have of getting people to listen to our domestic policy attacks is if they consider the Dem nominee up to snuff on the national security and foreign policy issue.

People vote for the Dem nominee, not his VP.

All he brings to the table is his military/foreign policy experience. That is where Bush is strongest (at least in the eyes of the general public). You don't beat an incumbent by trying to be better at him at what he's perceived to be strong on. You beat him by highlighting what he sucks at and being better at it. Clinton didn't beat Bush Sr. on what Bush Sr. was good at, he beat him on what he was bad at.

The dem nominee needs to be able to jump past the national security hurdle (not his VP), before he will be listened to on domestic policy.

I agree we need to attack Bush on domestic issues, but you can't do that without first getting over the national security hurdle.

This is not a replay of Clinton vs. Bush, because this is post September 11th. I don't care what you say or how we try to change the debate, no one is going to forget September 11th, and you can make damn sure Bush and the media won't let us forget. The only way we can move the debate past September 11th is to have that base covered. THEN they will listen to us on domestic policy. And that is why the nominee (NOT his VP) needs to be up to the title of Commander-in-Chief. This is a job interview.

Before you worry about whether the secretary you hire is good at filing papers, you ask whether that person can type. So before they listen to our attacks on their domestic policy, they want to know that our nominee can handle post September 11th terrorism and foreign policy.

You seem to mistake having military credentials as framing the debate solely on military terms. That is not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating neutralizing that angle. You and I also disagree on the VP issue. You believe that having a military credentials VP will all of a sudden make the nominee able to get past that hurdle. I'm saying no one votes for the VP.

But hey, those who are more interested in traditionally Democratic issues will always have Nader as an option. It's a mistake to try to compete with Bush for pro-war votes because it risks alienating many, many Democrats.

:shrug:

bush did not capture Saddam, in fact bush's bungling in Iraq war made the capture less likely and unsure with more chance for Saddam to disappear.

Leadership on and off the field and the lack of that in bush are what needs to be exposed now more than ever, and there are only two in that regard to choose from.

Clark/Kerry....Kerry/Clark


george bush…pResident?

retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

regardless of Saddam's capture and Afghanistan is returning into Taliban control, there is still a great need for a leader with experience in international/foreign affairs.

If anything, Kerry and Clark stand the most to gain in this because of their military backgrounds.

If this were October of 2004, I'd agree with you.

But they have claimed Bush was doing a horrible job in Iraq. The public sees this capture and will see it as a victory. I can see the ads now. One of Kerry's or Clark's criticisms fading to a picture of Saddam being led away in handcuffs. The announcer will say something like this: "Who do you trust on national defense, the man who caught Saddam Hussein or the man who compared our Commander in Chief to him?"

which is what kerry said today and before and will continue to say.

Saddam being carried out in hand cuffs while American soldiers are still being attacked. The capture of saddam and the impact on the war on terror is going to be yet another reality that * had no success strategy. Just like * underestimated resistance, he will overestimate the impact this capture has on the insurgency. Now more than ever Iraqi people will want us out. It is their country now. The case will be troops were killed because of miscalculations about foreign affairs. The only one who has been there done that is Clark. He is in the Hague today.

No sale. Spin. Spin. Spin.

but you throw your credibility into shadow w/ statements like these.

Buffing Bush's "foreign policy" stature makes it all the more
important that we have someone w/ foreign policy skills that surpasses
his. On this, Dean gets an F.

Clark is the ONLY chance we have.



































Please wake up. Please.

And heading for New Hampshire tomorrow.

For all the effort we put into the back and forth on DU, it's leg work on the ground that is going to make the difference. I applaud you.

We can diagree, and we do, but there is nothing like getting your hands dirty.

Once again, thanks. I applaud you, as well.

but can't afford it. Maybe I'll head to South Carolina next month. Let us know how it goes.

We can disagree, and often do, but there really is nothing like getting your hands dirty,

I applaud you, as well, for your words.

DB

We need someone who can match or beat Bush on foreign policy. We also need someone who can beat Bush on domestic issues. And we need someone who can run on a very different vision, domestically and internationally, to offer a CLEAR CHOICE. Kerry is the one and has been since the beginning.

This shows that November 2004 will be focused on national security and foreign policy. The Dem nominee (not his VP) had better have the credentials to challenge Bush on national security and foreign policy for the title of Commander-in-Chief.

Anyone without military credentials will start out negative.

Saddam? Is it going to change anything? Will the "war on terra" go on - yes. Has Iraq now been invaded by terrorists that we helped bring to that country that our shooting our military? Yes - they are there now, they were not before. I worry more than ever about our military now that he has been caught.

this was always true, and this Saddam capture only proves it more.

as well as his proven Leadership record & innate talent for Governing & making solid decisions... I guess you aren't referring to him.

He certainly has Domestic Policy strengths as well- having a Masters Degree in Economics, having worked in Office of Budget and Management, having been responsible for many thousands of children and families in Europe.

Clark is the total package and is marked by excellence.

What we should be doing is eliminating the Mediocrities from the race...

By the way, The "Military-ness" of Clark is simply icing on the cake. He can stand next to Junior and make him look like a piker.

A degree in economics does not take the place of a decade or more in government.

I think KaraokeKarlton has a good point here. Bush has blind sided Clark and is now the undisputed military leader, at least in the eyes of the sheeple. My opinion is that this is a bogus issue and the war was illegal and initiated to deflect attention away from he failing economy.

The economy will not miraculously recover, and quite the opposite is in store for it. Running on the bread and butter issues is what will win this primary and general election IMO.

Sorry to leave you hanging, but I've got to go cut down a tree before another whopping snow storm gets here. Nice card of Clark BTW.

Perhaps you didn't read my post and/or have missed the fact that he was responsible for the health education and welfare of hundreds of thousands.

He not only has a Masters in Economics he is a liscensed broker.

As Commander, he didn't just snap his fingers and get funding... He had to weddle, cajole and deal with BUREAUCRACY.

And he not only was in charge of American troops but as High Commander in Europe was responsible for hundreds of thousands in SEVERAL COUNTRIES.

He testified before Congress about Education.

He worked in Office of Budget and Management.

The main thing any of the Candidates have more experience in is Campaigning. That is, Running for Office.

And Campaigning has little to do with Leadership, Governing or Decisionmaking.

One could mention Legislating... but that largely has to do with building Consensus and Clark has proven his diplomatic skills as well.

And it would be easier to bring a VP to help in Legislation areas... since the VP is President of the Senate.

Clark's resume speaks to being Commander in Chief and Head of State
The other Candidates speak to being President of the Senate.

RNC & their media makes sure of that. The same way they pic what stories to air (dean is unstoppable) and what stories not to (Clark's testimony in hague silenced by Bushco). So, it's good to have a candidate with credentials on every aspect as my man Clark does. You want to see his domestic agenda? Click on his wensite on my sig. More qualifications score better than less.

Dean has been framing the entire debate the whole time. Who made it safe to criticize Bush in the first place? Hell, Bush has even been reacting to what Dean does.

Dean/Clark...it's the only ticket that will work.

"GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that."

Tim Russert, July 2002 What a spine!!!!!

What was Kerry saying:

"I think the administration has behaved quite clumsily and haphazardly on a lot of foreign policy fronts," Kerry said in an interview with editors and reporters.

Kerry, who has taken the lead among Democrats in breaking out of the party's post-Sept 11 reluctance to criticize Bush on foreign affairs, said he believed a power struggle in the Bush team was at least partially responsible for mixed signals sent to both Israel and the Palestinians.

"It's a most incredible display in my judgment of a kind of amateur hour, and the reason is there is no one person in charge," Kerry said. "Colin Powell is not being allowed to be secretary of state, in my judgment. They restrain him."

http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/19/int3.htm

of choice. Everyone else has been penalized - right from the start - with direct attacks and cone of silence. Ask the supporters of all other candidates about that "safety" you speak of. You guys have been spoiled so far - that's why you cry bloody murder at the first attack. Spare me the "made it safe" meme, OK?

get out of there? I bet a majority of voters do!
Clark's also the man with the plan to catch Osama and state by state detaoled economic plans. He can stare down W on any given subject - and won't blink! ;-)

than there is with america at large. it is a small minority of voters for whom national defense and fear are thier main reasons to vote. but we have a name for those voters- they're called REPUBLICANS! we could run a jesus christ and rambo ticket for president, and we would still not get these people to vote for us. our issues are jobs, health care, the budget, and the corporite takeover of america. let the republicans have the fear vote, that vote is thiers no matter what we do.

.... it has nothing to do with one upping Bush on Military experience. Christ, the son of a bitch was too busy snorting coke to even finish his own combat avoidance exercise in the National Guard.

It has to do with perception. Which is what politics is all about, my friends.

For us to go into battle with the likes of Rove and his DimSon after this shocking development this morning - when they, for years, already have managed to con much of the public into believing that they are the ones "strong on defense" - with a candidate who has severe warts in this matter and in other perceived "liberal" areas, rightly or wrongly, is absolute political suicide on the part of our party.

How do you think the Democratic base is going to react to that? Nader should do really well in 2004. Bush is going to get the vote of the people who approved of this war anyhow. If we don't run on traditional democratic domestic issues we all might just as well stay the hell home because we will LOSE if we compete for traditionally republican votes and ignore giving traditionally democratic voters a reason to believe and have hope for the future.

... one last time.

No. Not compete for... but, to be able to play on a level field with the likes of The Cabal and all their various chicken-hawks who have, regrettably, managed to sell the perception of their party and their DimSon as the party of the military and stronger on defense than those "weak kneeded, yellow-belly cowards, the Democrats."

Moreover, to do so to the two most critical elements in the electoral dynamic, the southern states and those in "the middle."

Instead this week, Mr. Gore ordains as the presumptive nominee a man who can likewise be challenged with the same "chicken-hawk" label as can three quarters of the GOP.

It's not all that complex to understand. Put a General on the stage of a debate with Resident McHappyCrack and the war is won before the microphones are turned on.