Democrats And Foreign Policy In 2008
Let's assume for the sake of argument that thanks to the Dick Cheney foreign policy, the world will be very screwed up at the time of the 2008 presidential election. Let's also assume that because of this, Democrats will have to field a ticket that gains the confidence of voters on fighting terrorism, managing foreign policy, and restoring intelligence and some moral leadership to our international affairs.
On his weekend show, Chris Matthews began saying that the recent shift in Democratic caucuses and primaries would benefit John Edwards to the detriment of Hillary. And although Howard Fineman and Gloria Borger agreed with that, Andrew Sullivan made the point that a winning candidate in 2008 will have to be able to step into foreign policy problems from the outset, and that voters will only feel comfortable with a Democrat with such gravitas. He was dismissive of Hillary and Edwards on this point, but specifically said that the only Democrat who could convince voters that he could straighten things out was Al Gore.
What do you think of that assessment? I agree with Sullivan on this. We can retake the White House in 2008, but only with a candidate who has exposure to foreign policy and can demonstrate to voters a confidence in dealing with the world and have the stature overseas to solve problems. With that as a backdrop, I don't think Hillary, Feingold, Warner, Vilsack and yes, Edwards meet that test. However, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Al Gore meet that test.
Given the mess that Bush will bequeath to his successors, what Democratic ticket do you think would best convince voters that they could handle the challenges overseas and fight a real war on terror while fixing the mess here at home as well?