Reply #4: If it's any consolation, I can't think of an election where foreign policy

[AP]

experience tipped the scales (off the top of my head).

A good example is Carter in '80. The Republicans made Iran a big issue and they made foreign policy a huge issue.

Voters believe that Republicans are better on frgn policy and nat'l security, regardless of who's running. So, once the convinced the voters it was the most important issue, they basically could have run anyone, becuase there was 30% difference between the number of people who felt any dem was better than any republican.

So, what happened? A Naval academy graduate (& valedictorian?) with a degree in nuclear engineering lost to a governor of California who was an actor -- a guy with no frgn policy experience.

The Republicans have put frgn policy front and center (via terrorism) because they know there is NO Democrat who can beat them if they can convince the world that this is the most important issue.

What Democrats need to do is run a candidate who is the best example of the STRENGTHS of the Dem party (middle class opportunity, rewarding work with wealth, rather than wealth with wealth, equality of opportunity on a level playing field, the importance of the public infrastructure, especially, eg, public schools -- think NC State, UNC). If we conceed that national security is the most important issue, will be playing on Republican home field advantage. We'll only ever be running a candidate who's is a patch for our weaknesses, and will simply highlight the fact that Democrats accept that the Republican world view is the right one. We can't win doing that.

Furthermore, more than experience, voters need to know is that you stand for something and you share their values. It is very clear what Edwards stands for. He is a living embodiement of what he stands for. You cant' think about him without thinking about what he stands for. His values are Democrat values. And they're homefield advantage for Democrats.

You've picked the right candidate.