Reply #23: But after Pearl Harbor

[Jai4WKC08]

FDR ran as a war president and won because people believed he could best prosecute the war.

He sure as hell didn't try to say, the war is about the transfer of wealth. That view is labelled "socialist" (true or not) and Repubs tried desperately to paint FDR as a socialist. They failed precisely because he had always wanted to fight the Nazis and didn't coddle the Japanese, whereas the Repubs were the isolationists. When WE were attacked, FDR's message came thru loud and clear.

The legacy of Vietnam gives us a different world in how middle America sees the Democratic leaders with respect to an ability to defend the nation. Doesn't matter that Vietnam had nothing to do with national defense. It's a matter of perception.

If we don't change that perception, we lose.

Most people already think Democrats are better equipped to handle domestic issues, and far too many are still undecided about who to vote for.

There's no doubt in my mind that Kerry is in fact strong on defense, and has the right foreign policy experience to salvage whatever's possible in Iraq. But he has a long Senate record that the RNC will use against him, and they will be feeding prejudices that are already strong within the voting populace. It's much harder to change an existing perception than to create a new one and Kerry will need all the help he can get.