Senator Kerry should read this. Not written by a Presstitute

[FrenchieCat]

It comes from Kenneth S. Baer, a former senior speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7927

The Last Hurdle

John Kerry's biggest problem -- still -- is the national security gap. Here's how he can close it.
By Kenneth S. Baer
Web Exclusive: 06.23.04

In Washington, the only question on anyone's mind is: WWJD -- What Will John Do? Everyone has a theory about whom John Kerry will pick (or should pick) as his running mate, and journalists are scrambling for any angle on the story that they can find.

Last Friday, The Washington Post ran one of the most interesting accounts of where Kerry's thinking may or may not be. While the article was filled with rampant speculation by a panoply of unnamed sources, one observation stuck out. According to the Post: "Friends say Kerry believes he has passed a national security threshold with voters that has freed him to tap a vice presidential candidate who complements him in other ways."

If these "friends" of Kerry were really his friends, they would inform him that, sadly, this is not the case. In fact, the only thing keeping George W. Bush in this race is that John Kerry has not yet met this "national security threshold" with the electorate. Voters still give the President a commanding lead on the questions of who can best protect the nation from terrorists and who is a stronger, more patriotic leader. Fortunately for Kerry, these sentiments say more about the Democratic party -- and voters' lingering doubts about Democrats and defense -- than they do about the candidate. Kerry has enough time to close this national security gap -- and must close it if he hopes to beat Bush this fall.

snip

For instance, the Post poll also reported that, by a margin of 54 percent to 40 percent, voters think that the statement "he will make the country safer and more secure" applies more to Bush than Kerry. This data is consistent with a survey of 1,515 likely voters commissioned by the New Democrat Network (NDN) at the end of May that showed that 53 percent of likely voters say that Bush would do a better job "protecting America from terrorist attack," and only 35 percent say that Kerry would. This 18-point advantage is Bush's largest on any issue area in this poll. In addition, it's more than double his lead on "handling the situation in Iraq," which has dwindled to seven percentage points in the NDN poll and is increasingly becoming a plus for Kerry.

MUCH MORE OF THIS ARTICLE AT THE SITE.....

[Skwmom]

1. I hope Kerry reads this. e/o/m

[Leilani]

2. Very good article &

very good advice...hope he realizes this!

[wjsander]

3. So is he suggesting Kerry picks...

... a pack of bomb-sniffing dogs?
... a x-ray cargo scanner?
... an airport retinal scanner?

Now that just makes no sense! :silly:

[spooky3]

7. LOL!

[Padraig18]

4. Since the latest CNN/USA Today poll (IIRC) says Americans think...

... that it was a bad decision to put US troops into Iraq (56/44, I believe, up from 41/59 earlier in the month), I think this issue is becoming one we're coming close to winning by default; should that trend continue, it is logical to assume that the electorate will also come to believe that Sen. Kerry himself/Democrats will do a better job with FP/national security.

I think the importance attached to the VP nominees' 'credentials' in any given area is vastly overstated, since there is an absolute dearth of evidence indicating that the electorate really cares very much about what the nominess' stance is in any given area of foreign or domestic policy; rightly or wrongly, factors such as looks, speaking ability, perceived harmony with the nominee himself, etc., are normally given far more weight by the voters.

:shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. I will only point out

That when polls were showing that the public backed Bush on Iraq and panned him badly on the economy, that was the basis of arguments by some that our VP should be someone who can best help our ticket exploit that advantage. These arguments run both ways, don't they?

[Padraig18]

6. Of course they do.

The problem is trying to decide today what the electorate will be thinking in November, Tom. That's why I think Kerry is probably looking at VP nominees as 'packages' for what they bring to the ticket in toto, rather than what they bring to it in any given single area or two.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Essentially we agree

My core issue is having a VP who is prepared to step in and be a great President if God forbid anything happened to Kerry. After that I have secondary concerns. Of course politicians do have to make their best stab at which issues will have the greatest prominence in any election cycle, that's how the phrase "It's the Economy, Stupid!" entered into the political vocabulary in the first place. Clinton got it right in 1992. This year my money is on "It's the War, Stupid!".

[Padraig18]

9. Yes, we do.

As I posted earlier this week, I think Kerry is looking at the candidates and saying to himself, "If I drop dead, who can I see sitting in the Oval Office without having heart failure, or breaking out into a cold sweat?". I suspect there are 3-5 people who meet that 'threshold', so Kerry then probably looks at the "What do they bring to the table, electorally?" arguments for each.

:)

[janx]

15. Well that's a given for any presidential candidate in who

he chooses as his running mate.

But I have to say that I have seen an awful lot of emphasis on this in the last few weeks regarding Kerry.

Do people expect him to die?

[Padraig18]

18. No, just 'worst-case scenario' thinking.

:)

[janx]

19. It's really weird because I keep reading posts that say

"God forbid, if anything should happen to Kerry..."

B-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Well I am a little more spooked than usual I admit

That airplane could just as easily have taken out the White House as hit the Pentagon on 9/11. There are always plots to blow up buildings each time there is a NATO or G8 summit or whatever. More people are gunning for our President nowadays than the prior level of background hate and crazies that we grew up accustomed to.

Having said that, I am mostly thinking in Political terms. People take the VP more seriously in times of War, when they are more worried to begin with. They want to feel comfortable with both halves of the ticket when they are intrinsically nervous.

Of course I am kind of a literal Constitutionalist anyway. I think we should always pick a Vice president who is fully qualified to become President.

[janx]

23. Tom, I didn't mean to single you out--I've seen comments

like this a lot. You are probably right in that people are a bit spooked.

But Chimpy has been very safe so far, and when Kerry replaces him, I suspect the safety will continue.

I agree with your last comment the most.

[Jai4WKC08]

27. I've probably said it a time or two

So let me elaborate.

In the last 60 years:

Roosevelt died. Kennedy was murdered. Nixon was forced out of office. They tried to force Clinton out of office and very nearly succeeded. Additionally, there were assassination attempts against Ford (twice), Reagan and Clinton.

So 3 of 12 vice presidents had to step into the office of president without election. It could have easily have been 6 of 12.

If no one has tried to knock off Bush, it's probably because liberals hate Cheney more, and terrorists actually want him there.

[cosmokramer]

26. 1/4 of all VP's become President...

...and 1/8 of those through the death/incapacity of the sitting President. I think now, in a vunerable world, and all the insanity in it, it would be foolish to choose someone who does not have ALL the skills necessary to become President, specifically in areas of foreign policy and national security.

It may not be Clark but some other person with gravitas in this area that Kerry selects--frankly, I don't care as long as that threshold is met--but it is definitely not Edwards. The VP slot is not "on the job training"--it is a security position in the event the 1st string quarterback cannot play. It always has been intended as such and always will be. And, in the event Kerry DOES become incapacitated, the 2nd string quarterback should know the playbook, and clearly, a certain someone does not.

(typo edited)

[The Commie]

30. We need a srrong VP...

...To take over if the NeoCons murder Kerry.

[Skwmom]

12. National security is much more than Iraq

If Kerry picks Edwards, a VP with no national security credentials , the corporate press and Rove will hammer Kerry for putting an unqualified person a heart beat away from stepping into the role of commander-in-chief because he's just another weak on national security Democrat, he's so insecure he had to pick a lightweight as a running mate, he's so weak he bows to the pressure of the Democrats (and will do so again and again when he is in office because unlike Republicans he - and his running mate - have no core values and beliefs)..

Furthermore, once Kerry taps a VP, you can count on the Rove and the press ratcheting up national security concerns. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Cheney step down and a national security heavyweight join the ticket (because Bush, a strong on national security Republican, understands that he has to have a strong person a heart beat away from stepping into the role of commander-in-chief in times such as these)....

Will the Southern Democrats pushing for Edwards want to be seen campaigning with a weak on national security Democrat (Edwards) when they've already got to overcome the long held belief that Democrats are weak on defense (especially when the Republicans already have enough ammo to cast serious doubt on whether Edwards is the populist he claims to be)?

[bushwakker]

10. I'm torn as to whether JK has enuf cred or not

on nat security. On one hand he is a decorated war vet with more knowledge and experience on for policy and nat security than AWOL (even after 4 years in the WH). On the other hand the WH is going to run around spending millions of $$ scaring the crap out of eberyone for the next 5 months. I guess the article is arguing for someone like Clark or Nunn over Edwards. I believe Edwards would be the confident choice but would be proud to have Clark on the ticket as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. You got that right about the Repubs playing the scare card

They will be trying at the very least. Here is an artical about a new Anti-Kerry ad coming out from the "Progress for America Voter Fund"

New Ad Questions John Kerry's Leadership

Thu Jun 24, 6:09 PM ET

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A conservative group launched its first television ad Thursday that shows President Bush (news - web sites) shaking hands with firefighters amid the World Trade Center wreckage and poses the question, "Could John Kerry (news - web sites) have shown this leadership?"

Progress for America Voter Fund said it will spend $1 million over three weeks to run the commercial — and another to be unveiled after July 4 — in the swing states of Nevada and New Mexico.

The organization said the ads are the first step in a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign designed to counter the pro-Democratic groups that have spent more than $40 million on ads criticizing Bush..."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=2043&e=14&u=/ap/20040624/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_ads

[Skwmom]

13. Just take a look at recent tv movies.

The Republicans have planned for years to play the "scare card."

[FrenchieCat]

14. That's what I am talking about....

Take the example of the Democrats and candidate Howard Dean.....Until they thought about it, voters were supportive of Howard Dean because he was against the war and saying many things that they thought, but had not heard articulated by any governmental officials. However, when they took a closer look and thought about it (starting with Iowans) they realized that to beat Bush, the opponent must offer security....national security that is, and that is the "electable" mantra became a chorus.

Many talk about how optimistic John Edwards is. How well he tells his tale of 2 Americas. The question is, however....will voters want optimism at a time when we are at war?......and optimism about what is Edwards supposed to represent. As he cannot speak on the war with any real authority.......what is the message that he would get out? The populist message, which is NOT John Kerry's message, will not be used by Kerry. That message, at a time of war....when Democrats should be working to unite the US against the warmongers would only further divide this country already so divided. There is no money in the coffers to do many of the things that Edwards would like to see happen domestically....as long as we are at war. Therefore, the War and security trumps all. It's hard to be "optimistic" when you are made to be afraid that there will be a terrorist attack somewhere.....maybe where you are next.

Personally I believe that John Edwards is the the Howard Dean of the Vice Presidency. People not thinking that hard and not looking that closely see an attractive individual. But when one looks further as what the REAL issues are in this MOST important election.....they have not much to do with what makes Edwards attractive. It a redux on Dean. We need an electable ticket......and we need a strong gravitas ticket. John Edwards is at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Skwmom]

28. Edwards is the Dean of the Vice Presidency.

I just hope someone on the Kerry campaign realizes that.

[cosmokramer]

29. Excellent observation!

:evilgrin:

[Skwmom]

31. The kudos belong to Frenchie Cat

I was responding to her awesome post (another of many). Though I've long thought this was the primary process all over again, she's the one who so eloquently pointed out that Edwards is the Howard Dean of the vice presidency.

[janx]

16. I didn't see any names mentioned in the article. It sounds as if

the writer simply wants Kerry to be about picking a good running mate--as soon as he can. It will make him stronger.

[cosmokramer]

17. "It's Foreign Policy & National Security, Stupid"

The issue of this election is not the economy. It is not health care. It is not education. Since 9/11, and the Iraq debacle, it is FP/Nat Sec. Period. And if we (democrats) don't take ownership of gravitas in this area, we're screwed. Kerry should be forward thinking and choose wisely (with this in mind).

And before the Edwardians start flaming me, consider this: I don't care if it is Clark as long as it is SOMEONE with significant experience in the areas that will most help us WIN--and it ain't Edwards.

[bushwakker]

21. You're right

polls may indicate that people care more about jobs, healthcare etc but this election is all about foreign policy and national security. Clark's praise of Bush concerns me. That's the first thing they'll hit him with and they won't let up. Bush on the stump: You know some people think I'm doing a great job in the war on terra - and that's just the opposing ticket!!!! Day after day after day. I'm afraid it makes Clark a bad choice. Sorry.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. It's a well worn argument

I trust most here at DU have been through this a number of times. Sorry but I disagree, strongly as a matter of fact. No one has more credibility on the War in Iraq than Wes Clark. The public isn't always highly informed but they are not stupid. They know where Wes stands and why, and they know he has been right all along, and if they don't, all they have to do is listen to him and that will be clear.

Oh, months ago I used to take the time to post the type of ad Clark could run to absolutely NAIL Bush if he tried to turn some patriotic well wishes spoken years ago against Clark now. It is child's play to do so. Clark is totally credible for two reasons. The obvious and most important one is that he knows EXACTLY what he is talking about. He is a brilliant ex Four Star General. The second is that Clark did not come to oppose Bush as a partisan knee jerk reaction. He wanted our Government to succeed in protecting the American people. But it hasn't. Americans outside of the hard core Democratic Party can relate to those feelings. And Americans who are hard core Democrats know that Wes is on our side, and even if a few are hesitant about that, they still will vote for Kerry. But that small group is negligible in impact, and I don't mean to insult you by that if you happen to be in that group. I frequently am negligible in impact.

[cosmokramer]

24. Clark's remarks...

...were made PRE 9/11, and in a general context--not terror specific. Furthermore, he appeared at a democratic fundraiser the following week.

You should know that by now.

And what may have 'limped' him in the democratic primary will actually help him in a General Election.

By the way, nearly every single contender for the VP slot PRAISED Bush AFTER 9/11 for the action in Afghanistan. Therefore, if your complaint were valid, it would apply to all those persons as well.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. Boy have you got that backwards

You think the guy who has let it be thought that he was courting McCain (not that I think he did seriously) is gonna be concerned that his VP initially praised Bush? Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the Kerry campaign put that video clip in an advertisement.

Kerry's trying to look moderate and bipartisan, remember?

'Course, they might also include parts of the rest of the speech--how Clark told the Repubs how important it is to maintain traditional alliances, and only act in concert with the international community--the exact opposite of what the Bushies did.

Clark's status as an independent when he was in the military may have hurt his campaign for the Democratic nomination, but it's an asset to Kerry in the general election.