Reply #28: Thanks! and more on "the "Chickenhawk factor" [View All]

[realcountrymusic]

Very kind of you. I agree, in fact, that staying off the "chickenhawk thing" makes some sense in the public discourse of the campaign, though I take for granted that participants in this forum mostly agree that the cynicism of Those Who Didn't Serve sending our kids to die in Iraq is the ultimate example of RW arrogance.

As I said in my previous post, I think Kerry/Edwards, or Kerry/Clark, would do well to avoid selling such arguments hard, though surrogates can still play this angle with the right constituencies (veterans, in particular). Kerry's Vietnam service, properly touted, will do the job without having to say much about why Shrub and Dick didn't show up for duty.

One more reason for favoring Edwards, IMHO, is that I think the "Vietnam" angle is going to get stale over the next six months if it is hammered by Kerry too hard. A substantial portion of voters are either too young to care or too ignorant of history or too conflicted about their own feelings on that war. Kerry served, more than honorably. But it's his history of serving and then *opposing* the war which provides the richer story to campaign on in light of the current crisis. He can turn the charge of "flip-flopping" into a character asset: he gives his country the benefit of the doubt, but learns from experience and is able to change his mind, and advocate changing policy, where others are blinded by ideology or fear. Edwards as VP lets voters who don't want to re-fight Vietnam identify with a candidate who was too young to be held accountable for his actions in that era, and who represents a more future-oriented vision. I think it's really important for voters to be able to imagine their VP as a future president. I think that's one place where Gore went wrong picking Lieberman (besides JL being an ineffectual "moderate"). Rove inverted the image because there was no way * could embody the gravitas of a Kerry -- or even a Gore. So we all went to the polls knowing we were voting for or against President Cheney. Right Wing voters, in particular, took comfort in that fact. We can turn that image into a liability this time around with Kerry/Edwards. I'm convinced of it. You DO need one candidate, and *ideally* the top of the ticket, to evoke history, experience, gravitas, etc., and one to evoke youthfulness and a future orientation. Clinton managed to do both at once, though he de-emphasized the gravitas and had the sheer charisma to do it (plus the ineffectual Bush Sr. and hapless Dole as opponents). Gore was his young man in waiting, and played it well. He just failed as the heavy.

I'm willing to bet that if Kerry picks Edwards, he goes up 4 or 5 points within 2 weeks. I'm less certain how much or how quickly Clark will raise his numbers, though over the long term, and especially if Iraq remains the Big Story and/or there is another major terror event in the US, Clark might be just as strong a VP candidate. But the image of Kerry/Edwards is an ad-man's dream.

Realcountrymusic