BTC News, Talking Points Memo, and Legal Fiction (seconding TPM) are but a few of the bloggists out there that state the obvious -- the presidential election this year will center on national security. It is all well and good to examine how else a Kerry Administration will be much better than the current bunch of clowns in fiscal policy and all the rest, and it's part of the debate, but national security is the key. It was key in 2002 as well, though the Democrats tried to punt (vote for the Toss The Car Keys To The Drunk Resolution), and win on economics. Morons.
Senator Kerry on some level recognizes the fact. For instance, one reason why Dean was deemed a bad choice (aside from his personality) is his lack of national security experience. Sen. Edwards also had that problem, and it almost amuses me when some think he would have been a credible candidate in this environment. But, what does JFK do? Focus on his Vietnam experience, ignoring that hundreds of thousands of his fellow citizens served in a war, many a helluva lot longer than he. Many also spoke out against the war they fought in.
[Update: I do not mean to deny that his experiences are beneficial. Combat experience as well as eloquently protesting a war deemed to be unjust compares well with supporting such a war but thinking nothing of getting special privileges to get out of it. The point to be underlined is that it is but one aspect of his biography, is not unique, and deemed by many (rightly or wrongly) as ancient history. Also, strategically, it didn't turn out that well for him. Finally, the lessons he learned didn't quite include the dangers of giving too much authority to those that cannot be trusted with it.]
This also led to the ongoing, and apparently never to end, big debate over what happened when many voters were not even bloody born yet! The chance (and this will leave some with egg on their face) that the infamous Killian memos might be recreations only makes things worse. But, scream many, the guy is guilty! Keep it up ... it will be as pointless as it has been. The amount of precious time this issue has wasted is atrocious.
The true national security issue is what is going on now. It comes in at least two central forms. One, at best, the War on Iraq was a good idea that was done very badly. Two, even if he was a good person to handle things right after the attacks (if fear, war, and macho posturing was the way you wanted to go), the long haul requires a more (ahem) nuanced approach. And, the current occupant in the job just is not equipped to handle the job. If Kerry did a better job spelling out some of this work in the Senate (including against a bank favored by terrorists) instead of focusing on his service thirty years ago, we might better understand why he's the better man for the job.
Kerry does, in his imperfect fashion, discuss how Bush handled things badly. Kerry explains how the resolution was meant to allow Bush to force inspections, not to go to war. The senator's failure to accept responsibility for giving away the store (with firm words to the robbers not to be good) rings hollow, but he does have a point. Bush himself said the power was needed to keep the peace, that he wouldn't act without a vote from the UN, and so forth.
All the same, Kerry needs to hit hard, and across the board. To give but one example, as a candidate, Bush criticized President Clinton for being too soft on authoritarian Russia. Soon enough, President Bush bonded with Putin, and the leader's anti-democratic policies were largely ignored, helping to lead to some troubling developments. Other examples of support of despots for pragmatic reasons (admittedly our policy for years) can be found.
Kerry's ill advised remarks against attempts at democracy in Cuba and criticism of Hugo Chavez (the Bush Administration rushed to support those who attempted a coup against him, their platitudes about democracy and freedom shown to be only that) are a couple examples of how he's far from ideal. But, we have to accept the possible, and the Bush Administration has a lot to answer for. We cannot concede national security to the Republicans or expect that making it a wash will be enough (though it might be for many voters). Nor should we.
The Bush Policy, including it's simplistic emphasis on war (and war on Iraq in particular, something Legal Fiction shows is just plain counterproductive, though the war profiteering alone didn't help. Why not give the chunk of the contracts to locals?), needs to be refuted strongly and in detail. In a democracy, ultimately, the people themselves need to be held responsible. And, if Bush is re-elected, they will deserve some degree of the blame, as they did in 2000 for having misguided priorities. But, their leaders are supposed to help them out. This applies to wannabe leaders, such as Kerry.
The opportunity is there. Let's see if he can take it.