Interesting posts reference John Kerry on "The Premise" blog

[_dynamicdems]

It seems that folks are starting to agree with the idea of a deadline as a way to make Iraqis stand up for themselves.

That’s really the essence of the problem that John Murtha and John Kerry have been talking about in advocating a timetable for withdrawal and redeployment of U.S. troops. As long as President Bush promises that we’ll hang around to keep the peace with American blood, the Iraqis don’t really have much incentive to step up.

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/16/2006/406

This comment is on a statement by Senator Kerry as to how he would have handled Iraq:

I think most Americans, if they heard that statement now, would think it was the right statement to make before getting the United States involved in any war. It is the statement of a statesman, a commander in chief, a president. Of someone who believes that reason can direct action and not simply provoke or unleash it.

But the nation was led down a very different path, and it’s tempting to lay some of the blame for that at the feet of the American people. Both for voting for George Bush initially, and for not rejecting his excesses when they were being proposed.

But that’s a dodge of another kind, and misses the most important point. Prior to 2000, the bar of what a president should be was lowered to the point that George Bush was applauded for being a guy people could imagine having a beer with. Six years later the verdict is in on that standard, and it doesn’t pass muster.

On this planet it will ever be the case that you go to war not with the army you have, as Donald Rumsfeld famously said, but with the President you have. And that’s a lesson that each of us should be teaching our children from this day forth. Whatever else you think about what or who a president should be, the person in the White House should be someone we trust to take the country to war if that needs doing.

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/15/2006/395

Now this 2008 speculation is very interesting...

So, which Democratic candidates might be able to pass the commander-in-chief test with non-affiliated voters in 2008? Of the current list of prospective or hoped-for candidates — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh and Wesley Clark — I see three candiates who could pass the commander in chief test, and two who might be able to make a compelling case.

Passed: Al Gore, John Kerry, Wesley Clark.

Might pass: Bill Richardson, Joe Biden.

Whether you agree or disagree with those lists, note that the candidates most beloved by activists in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Russ Feingold — are the least qualified on questions of national security. And that’s going to be a problem for the Democratic Party in 2008, just as it was in 2004.

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/15/2006/393