Inside Politics

Forget terrorism

“One notable thing about John Edwards’ now-famous ‘Two Americas’ speech is that it doesn’t say anything — not a word — about terrorism,” Byron York writes at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com).

“It doesn’t mention Iraq, either. In fact, the only discussion of foreign affairs at all is Edwards’ pledge to restore America’s image in the world, which Edwards describes as ‘the image we used to have, America as the shining light on top of the hill, beacon of freedom, democracy, human rights.’

“There’s a reason — other than his lack of experience in the field — that Edwards chooses not to emphasize the topic. A look at exit polls from the five states in which such polls were conducted on Tuesday suggests that few Democratic voters — especially those who voted for Edwards — care much about terrorism and national security,” Mr. York said.

“Pollsters asked voters the following question: ‘Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted today?’ Voters were given six choices: taxes, education, health care/Medicare, the war in Iraq, national security/terrorism, and the economy/jobs.

“In four of the five states for which exit polls are available — Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Carolina — Democratic voters placed national security/terrorism at the bottom of the list. Only in tiny Delaware, on the East Coast and not far from Ground Zero, did Democrats place more emphasis on the issue — and even then, it was in next-to-last place.

“Democrats in every state placed the economy/jobs issue in first place.”

Misplaced strategy

What Democratic presidential candidates John Edwards, Wesley Clark and Howard Dean face “is a party establishment that craves the certainty of [John] Kerry as the de facto nominee,” USA Today political columnist Walter Shapiro writes.

“This explains why the party’s chairman, Terry McAuliffe, is fulminating against any candidate who remains in the race without winning an early primary,” Mr. Shapiro said.

Mr. McAuliffe and the other leaders of the Democratic National Committee “wanted to drain all of the suspense out of the fight for the nomination, because they feared a divisive contest. That’s why, for the first time, they jammed 17 primaries and caucuses into February.

“But few party leaders realized that the Democratic contenders would do far more damage to George W. Bush than one another. The widespread public attention being devoted to the fast-shifting Democratic race and the candidates’ critiques of the president are major factors contributing to the plunge in Bush’s approval ratings. In short, for the first time in years, swing voters appear to be listening to the Democrats.

“It takes a certain strategic genius to respond to the success of the Democratic race by wanting to cut off the candidates’ dialogues with the voters. If, say, Kerry becomes the all-but-certain nominee in a week or two, he will be transformed from the central figure in an epic political yarn about second chances into a static candidate who has little to do for the next few months but mull his vice presidential selection.”

Story Continues →