Reply #24: In fairness, McCain is the opposite in that example [View All]

[karynnj]

The parallel circumstance would have been if he flamed Bush and praised his friend, Senator Kerry.

Here the problem with Rendell is that he is using language that is over the top and splits the party. If he meant that Kerry, and other Democrats running, should concentrate on the issues the Democrats are perceived strongest on (economics) and minimize the times they bring up the issue that Republicans are perceived strongest at (national security), he should say that clearly.

Then it would be clear he is talking strategy, not the underlying values of the candidates. For Rendell, though it would convert something that people can buy into in a knee jerk thoughtless manner to a serious discussion which he likely would't win, though the truth can't be known. When the world is a mess, we need someone who can demonstrate foreign policy experience, understanding of the military, and terrorism. While Kerry had excellent Denmocratic credentials on the all the economic issues (except trade - where he was never as far away as Clinton), but he also had enormous strength on the other issues. Not talking about them would be as smart as accidently discarding an "A" in a card game where aces were high.

What's clear to me, is that Kerry was outstanding on the Republican issue - which is why he had the major jump in the polls after the first debate. It wasn't that he fought in Vietnam, but that he worked very hard on the SRFC for nearly 20 years. Any politician had to at minimum demonstrate that they were adequate on this issue - because for people who already gave Bush a pass on this until they accepted Kerry as at least a peer on these things, they didn't want to hear about health care.

That's why in the primaries, it was fair when Kerry and others pointed to Dean's lack of foreign policy experience. This was a liability. (Dean pointed to the lack of CEO experience of the DC based people.) This may be an issue again with Warner and Vilsack, people Rendell from earlier posts is impressed by. (It also is true for Rendell himself.) There's a DU-P thread where Warner wasn't up to speaking about Iraq - where the Warner supporters argue it's not important or brilliantly argue that it's not a valid question because it is posted by a known Clark supporter.