Which Democrat is perceived strongest on Ntl security & defense?

The perceived advantage that Republicans have on the issues of National Security, homeland and international defense has become legendary and will make it tempting to the GOP Junta to attempt to manipulate events in their favor in 2006-2008.

Just like the Iraq War was rolled out by Rove just prior to the 2002 congressional elections, I suspect that the Republicans will try something similar but different in 2006. I believe that some type of national defense crisis will be manufactured in time for elections because the Republicans understand that they are perceived strong in this area (even if they are just a bunch of chickenhawks) by voters.

We also understand that the GOP will not hesitate in politicizing some war/peace issue and trick Democrats into taking a stand. The media, who is on the GOP's side will assist in making this easy. The GOP "Daddy" Party will do all that they can to remain in power....and this is truly the only trump card that they have to attract moderate and swing voters.

Which one of the following Democrats is perceived to represent our greatest strength in this area?

That whole General and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO thing probably helps him a bit in that department.

.

I'm still thinking of Kerry in terms of President-elect.

edit: meaning it goes without saying

although perceived strong in that area is more talk than documented actions, IMO.

As was evident in the last election, I don't particularily believe that John Kerry had enough examples in his recent history to provide a perception of strength in this area to voters.

They managed to miss his 20 year efforts on behalf of the military, its armament, and veterans. They managed to miss the fact that he wrote a book on terrorism long before 9-11 that predicted it would become the next war.

I agree about the media....but Kerry also did not highlight these areas either. He had chances to include and to accentuate these feats and efforts in commercials, the debates and even at the convention....for whatever the reason, he stuck to Vietnam instead.

I wish the campaign had highlighted it more. Also, Kerry has a very superior record when it comes to the environment, and I didn't hear much about that either.

Bob Shrum just failed to communicate it.

Go search for "john kerry BCCI"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002062322_timashby14.html

If he had communicated that to the public he wouldve won. I am sure of it. I emailed the kerry campaign so many times telling them to make use of this but they didnt.

The other choices are great Democrats but don't even come within hailing distance of Clark's creds on these issues. Framing 2006 & 2008 for Democratic electoral success is THE huge issue. If the Dem message is about a response to the messianic GOP - been there, done that and have the 80-88,2000, 2004 special edition t-shirt collection. It has to be about fresh ideas, new ideals and people who are not part of the existing structure. In other words, do you believe the people who helped create the problem, can now fix it?

Clark! :bounce:

what are we supposed to do over the next sixty years only nominate people who look strong on national security? this war on terrorism is the new cold war and it will last as long if not longer than the cold war. If Kerry, a decorated Vietnam hero and a US Senator for 20 years with a ton of international and national security experience can't win--then I think the issue is meaningless. Any of our potential candidates would do better than the chimp has in this area.

I thought elections were about winning? We don't control the issues that will be at the forefront....the media and the GOP obviously do. Please retake a look at the 2002 congressional and the 2004 presidential election and demonstrate how this issue was deemed "meaningless".

I think to ignore this issue are call it meaningless will insure a GOP win in 06-08. We cannot be the Ostrich Party.

Kerry's Vietnam experience was over 35 years ago. Please list the "tons of International and national security experience" Kerry highlighted in his presidential run.

(edited: to correct Ostrich without an "e" at the end)

An uncoordinated campaign by Kerry in which he couldn't give a reasonable rationale for his policy on Iraq is what lost it. We don't know if anybody could have done better in '04 though--not Dean and not even Clark. They would have torn both of them to screds too, only difference is maybe they would have fought back sooner rather than latter.

Based on your prior statement....what "ton of experience in International and National security" did John Kerry highlight during his run for President?

Also, I disagree with your assessment of what won (if he did) Bush the election. I think that his only saving grace was the selling of his image as a "resolute" leader who would keep us safe. I believe that his promotion of "not switching horses in the middle of war" made the difference. As it has been found out....the moral issue spoke more to his base than to moderates and swing voters. I believe that these voters who ended going Bush did so because they felt that John Kerry might be indecisive and too nuanced in case of a crisis.

THE ATTACKS FROM ROVISTA CAME! Kerry waited FOUR WEEKS.
Kerry damaged himself!

and I trust W to keep this up.

> We don't control the issues that will be at the forefront....the media and the GOP obviously do

THAT is the problem. We can NEVER win as long as they decide what the game is.
Wesley Clark might be the perfect candidate on national security,
but if we run him, they'll make something else the issue.

apart from "moral" value issues (which Clark is also strong on), what would the issue be?

Economic issues belong to Democrats....and Republicans cannot win on those.

I don't think that Tax cuts or tax and spend liberals can be used for a while.....what with the deficit.

Health care will not be the issue that Republicans would want to highlight.

God issues will only work with the GOP base. Although the media as attempted to mislead us that this is what won it for the Republicans, the public in general is not buying it.

When you hear McCain, Hagel, and Guiliani as the "hopefuls"....what issue would they turn to? Frist and Santorium might try moral issues...but during GOP primaries, they will have to respond to the above hopefuls who would be highlighting their strengths....national security (really the only McCain/Hagel/Guiliani advantage over other GOP candidates).

They just need a plausible excuse for all those Bush* votes to have
appeared out of nowhere,
and "moral values" (bigotry) will always work for that.

the voting machine issues, I mean. Of course without voting being secure....the discussion won't matter.

We must chew gum and walk at the same time.

I expect Kerry and others to lead the charges within congress on this one. If they go to the people first and then put the heat on congress....I believe that it could be done.

If the Democrats in congress can not change this.....then we are totally screwed.....

I have to agree with it being somewhat meaningless. You need to understand there is a LARGE population of ignorant baby boomers out there, who EVEN after 911 see this country as being a fortress against terror, and the most secure country in the world both nationally and internationally. Most of these poor bastards have never even been to another country, so they really have no reasoning for that opinion, but that is what they think, nonetheless. On top of that these ignorant geezers do not think 911 was the worst disaster in the history of the United States despite the death toll and they will never be convinced that PH isn't far worse. They are proud of our Actions in WWII and really have never the left the euphoric feeling of kicking some Japanese butt. They are the "winning is everything" crowd! the oldest of the baby boomers, who's father's probably served in WWII, but who were too old to have served in Vietnam. They likely have younger siblings who served though and they are definitely remember the Vietnam protesters, but again were not part of the Hippie generation and saw them as bums! They are the 60-65 year olds rihgt now. They are assured of their SS benefits and could give a shit less if anyone else get's them. They are also the SINGLE most successful American generation regardless of education. they think thier children's generation are a bunch of lazy spoiled rotten bums. They will never recognize that thier children work 2-3 times as many hours to succeed half as well as they did in life. As long as these people breathe, no man that served in Vietnam and lateer protested will EVER be elected President.

I have researched the hell out of Kerry, done far less research on Clark, as far as I'm concerned Kerry is the BEST man for the job, but I'm afraid to say, it is highly unlikely, we can get him elected in 2008.

SORRY FOR ALL THE SPELLING ERRORS AND TYPOS, WAS TOO HURRIED TO BOTHER W/ SP CK.

Stand up & make our vote count!

but there are a whole lot of idiots out there that will stop at nothing to supress that fact, even from themselves! We may have no choice but to let them do so and gear up for 2008!

I don't think it's about Kerry being unqualified in any way; I think it's about a lesson we keep having to learn over and over again, which is that it's very difficult to have a candidate with a long record in Congress. It is just much too easy for the other side to make hay of a lengthy voting record, and make it appear to say whatever they want it to appear to say. We've seen this time and time again, and it's only gotten worse as the media's become more RNC-compliant.

Fact is, even though Kerry was a Viet Vet, etc the people perceived Bush to be better on security. You gotta wonder why Kerry lost, even though he was so much stronger on so many issues. Fact is, security trumped the other issues that Kerry was strong on. Now, maybe it should not have been that way. Kerry, after all, was in the real world, stronger on security than Bush. However, perception is everything. The Swift Boat Smear hurt Kerry here. The flip-flop meme hurt Kerry here. People viewed Bush as "resolute". If you don't think these perceptions had something to do with Kerry not winning in a landslide, I am afraid you are not learning from this election.

Wes Clark, if he had been nominated VP, would probably have given the ticket enough stature to withstand the Republican smears, and also to be able to make an issue of Bush's short-comings on security. Kerry, by himself, was not effective by himself here and Edwards contributed nothing. Clark, as a presidential candidate, would be strong on security. Which means people would trust the Dem Ticket enough to look beyond security and into the domestic issues that the Dems are traditionally stronger in. Wes Clark: the candidate in 2008 who can make voters comfortable on security, and besides, Clark is not uncomfortable to discuss values.

Rove would have come up with "Tank Drivers for Truth" to attack him

President Wesley Kaane Clark (2009-)

:dem:

Most of the issues in 2008 will be entirely domestic.

My own crystal ball is a bit cloudy.

Iraq will be done with by then because Bush won't have the stomach to sit around and the Republican leadership will not want another war. September 11th will be a distant memory for most people as well. The fights of the next four years will be mainly domestic on Social Security and the Supreme Court.

Whether or not it serves the GOP to lull the public to sleep about them, or whether it serves the GOP to freak the public out about them, is the only question.

Iraq will NOT be "done with." Whether or not US troops withdraw, it will be unstable at best in 4 years, and instability is a haven for all sorts of organizations that threaten the region and western nations as well.

There may well be another terrorist attack (or several combined simultaneously as they tend to do) here by 2008. Certainly there will be more around the world, as there have been since 9/11.

The problem of loose nukes remains, since little is being done about it. Meanwhile, Iran, North Korea, and other countries remain threats.

The dollar is going to keep falling, and this could seriously undermine our position in the world and make us vulnerable. Combined with unfriendly feelings from Europe in particular, this will at *least* bring home the fact that we need to work with the rest of the world, whether or not it gets bad enough that people see how it weakens us in other ways, as well.

Experience in issues of national security, diplomacy, and the military will all be key; and I think it'll be particularly important in regard to Europe as things develop (or sink) regarding the dollar as well as counter-terrorism, Iraq, and the middle east in general.

that's what Shrum etal said in 2004.....

Should we bet the farm on this prediction?

be an issue. However, by 2008, Iraq will no longer be an issue and September 11th will be a distant memory. The election of 2008 will be a very different campaign than 2004.

Will there be peace on Earth after 4 more years of Bush? Will Bush be nominated and win a Nobel Peace Prize?
If so, GOP wins, no matter what.

Ever thought of running for DNC Chair?

Your predictions sound marvelous.

Of course the media and the GOP would like for us to think this way....so that they can call us SUCKERS......after an easy victory.

The American people didn't get a chance to see enough of Wes, I don't think, to have a big perception of him. They know he's a general -- would that be enough?

And yet many have heard Kerry now via the debates and some speeches talk about security (and whether or not the knew it, they heard Clark, since I think Clark helped with the outline of some of those speeches).

But anyway, I saw the question as perception, not necessarily reality.

http://www.opednews.com/schroeder_111204_red_states.htm
We are not immune to bomb scares, evacuations, or even terrorist threats to our malls. We used to think that since we weren’t in New York or L.A., we must be safe. We don’t think that any more. Even with our increased security, we don’t have soldiers and bomb sniffing dogs on a daily basis. But I have seen them - along with street closures, circling helicopters and lockdowns - when someone reports a “suspicious” package or activity. Please don’t think that because you live in New York, you have a monopoly on fear, nervousness or the related security measures.

read the whole thing. This is why he voted W AND NOT KERRY.

we ran a war hero for president and the pack of scum swift boat vets for truth destroyed that advantage.

Kerry embarrassed Bush in the debates and made him look incompetent but polls showed people STILL believed Bush was better at stopping terrorism.

We are never going to make ourselves out to be bigger bullies than the Republicans, so why waste time trying? We should play to our strengths as a party, not our weaknesses.

As for this issue, he fought a 92 campaign as his choice of VP indicated. Wrong message, wrong time.

I didn't notice. I heard him talk about Iraq more and how bad Bush is. Really, I'm still not sure what Kerry's campaign themes were, which was part of the problem.

the issue is academic. Voters didn't buy kerry as the tough guy - his voting record didn't help much. Sorry to agree with the GOP, but I have trouble grasping the logic behind"against 1st Gulf war, for the second"
Why did he trust W more than Poppy?

The problem is the problem simply doesn't associate "Democrats" and "National Security." That's why Bush won the "world affairs"-vote in 2000 even though he had absolutely NO experience in that field and Al Gore and Bill Clinton had done far more for national security and foreign policy.

I realize people here are saying Clark. I agree that Clark is good on national security, as is Kerry. But the question is who has perceived strength? Frankly, I doubt that many Americans know or remember Wesley Clark - people have short memories and he wasn't the nominee.

Now, if he runs a good campaign in '08 (assuming he runs), if he gets the nomination, he COULD have perceived strength, but he doesn't have it yet. Remember, the question is "perceived" not actual strength.

Could Howard Dean really beat out John Kerry in this area? come on now.....How could that be?

It must be Clark right? So you are suggesting we have another election in 2008 just like the one we just lost? Let's make it all about terrorism and war and hope that this time they don't fight dirty.

Smart frenchie...let's keep playing their game and this time let's play it with someone who has no political experience or capital. That'll work.

No NS needed to bring us back to normal. I am sure W is flatered.
After all, Ashcroft said he's done with crime and terrorism...Why shouldn't W end war as we know it? And them we can run the 1992 election again - the only one we know to (and tried hard to run this time as well)

i'd say the answer is: Sam Nunn ...

The question is meaningless as long as 'good on defense' or 'tough on terror' means 'killing swarthy people who worship the wrong God and won't kiss our ass'.

The GOP have bodies, fresh bodies, to point to to prove they'll deliver the goods.

What does any Democcrat have to point to that has the dick-swinging cred of actually starting a war just because?

The GOP will never lose if the issue is framed their way -- security equals killing The Other in heaps and bunches -- because they've got the stomach, and the effrontery, to keep doing it.

i was merely suggesting that Nunn was perceived as the most skilled on defense issues ... i was not suggesting that he would be a viable candidate ...

Have people really learned nothing from this last election? The people who put a premium on a Rambo type politicans are not our voters, and they never will be. It doesn't matter who we run- we Dems could have a Colin Powell/Tommy Franks ticket, and the people who vote based on "national security" would STILL go repub.

We can never, ever pander enough to those people to get their votes. Just like the obsessed anti-choice/anti-gay marriage people. We will NEVER get their votes, and we damn well better stop trying.

There's been a long-standing stereotype that Democrats are "weak on national security," but I think it's one we need to work at shattering. The fact that Democrats haven't won (or taken office, I should say) despite being veterans strong on defense, etc. does NOT mean we can let that go; doesn't mean we'd do the same or better if the candidate didn't have those features; doesn't mean it makes no difference. It's vitally important or Democrats won't have a shot at ALL at national office.

But I don't want it to be the centerpiece of any campaign, either. Again, these people are not our voters, and there is nothing that we can do to attract them. We need to run someone who is a strong candidate, is clear on her/his stands on the issues, has charisma and a backbone, and can motivate people to get to the polls.

Who is that miraculous candidate for 2008? I don't know, and I'm not pretending to know. All I'm saying is that we need to run our kind of campaign with our kind of candidate, and let the chips fall where they may, instead of running according to the republicans' script. Let's set our own agenda for once, and force them to respond to the economic issues voters face! We win on kitchen table issues, not "national security."

and national security is, and will remain, a huge issue in the job of Commander in Chief. That's not really a "republican script," it's part of the president's job, and voters need to have confidence in the candidate in that regard.

It's even more important for a Democratic nominee to have bonafides, because the stereotypes help the Republican candidate and hurt ours. That's why they were able to convey the image of a Strong Military War President with a chickenhawk cheerleading coward, while our own candidate, a true war hero of great courage, was widely seen as "weak on defense." It's important to get over the hurdle of those stereotypes and one day (I hope) put them behind us altogether.

The endless "who to run in '08" threads are getting out of hand. This one isn't even official until 12/13/04, the vote fraud still hasn't been resolved, and you guys keep pimping people for '08?

Please, I understand your love for the guy, but it's waaaaaaaaaaaay too early to push for any candidate.

Unless, of course, you're just expressing admiration for the guy, in which case I'll shut my uninvited mouth. :)