How to market a "National Security" Democrat

ILLUSTRATED: Be open and proud of being a pro-military Democrat.

I. The Problem

The National Journal conducts an Insider's Poll, getting anonymous quotes from politicos from both parties on various issues. Recently, the matter of how voters perceive the Democrats on National Security came up. The Democrats' weakness is "our saving grace" said one Republican. A Democrat said anyone who doesn't see that National Security cost the Dems the 2002 and 2004 elections "shouldn't be in this business".
There is a two pronged political problem for Democrats. First, from 1972 through 2000, Democrats have pandered too much to a constituency that hates the military as an institution and seems to think that nothing is worth war. The rhetoric of some Democratic politicians has been contemptuous and ignorant of the military. Thus the post 9/11 polls are not surprising when two thirds of voters associate the GOP with keeping us safe.
Secondly, Democratic politicians, from school boards to the U.S. House mainly focus on the twin issues of education and medication. These are the issues that win in Democratic primaries from city council, to the state legislatures, to Congress. Inevitably, this will lead to a certain profile of candidate. These candidates cannot criticize Bush (the worst foreign policy president ever) without looking like they are not willing to fight for anything.
For example, imagine there is a Democratic primary in a random Congressional district somewhere in the country. Candidate A and Candidate B have equal name recognition and money at the start and run on similar platforms. Candidate A is a labor lawyer who served as PTA president, a school board member, then in the state legislature on the Health Care committee. Candidate B was a military intelligence officer for 10 years, then started an international security consulting firm.
Who do you think will win 9 out of 10 times? Candidate A of course, since A personifies what the party base is interested in.
The bottom line is that leaves much the party as a bunch of Nanny Staters, who see the federal government as just another layer of funding for schools and health care. Both critical goals, but not the mainline activity of federal officials. After 9/11, the American people were reminded of that, and our party had better get real.

II. The Solution

John F Kennedy was really our last nominee to be successfully marketed as a potential Commander in Chief. Harry Truman is a good exemplar too, let's look to them.
-Leave no doubt about a willingness to use force. The GOP will try to frame the debate as they are creating democracy, while we are not willing to fight for anything.
-Create a coherent, thematic platform for the world.
-Feel comfortable talking about national strength. That means military, economic, and cultural. Education and healthcare can be promoted in that frame. Tie in antiterror with freedom, and economic development as a moral issue.
-Much of our political base doesn't respond to these issues. While we must stay on message to win a Primary, don't neglect these issues for a vocal 2%. Don't be bashful about being identified with the military.
-Our activists don't like Alpha personas. They are put off by people with command presence. But it is essential for nominees, particularly for executive office. Speaking authoritatively, in declarative sentences creates an aura of command that voters want in dealing with National Security.
-Learn about the military, international finance, trade, and diplomacy. Simple enough. Tip O'Neill said "all politics is local", well these issues are local in the age of terror.

With Rove, Keep the arguments general

There are two issues: Should Rove be fired, and should Rove be indicted. As of this this writing, I can't glean anything from press reports to indict him. But as a former security manager in the Air Force, I can tell you that if a member of my unit leaked the name of an intelligence agent to anyone, that person would be immediately removed from their job and have their security clearnance taken.
As commander-in-chief, Bush needs to publicly demonstrate to the military and intellegence establishment that he takes this seriously. He hasn't even announced an internal investigation and suspended Rove.
The GOP talking points focus on the legal points. We need to focus on general irresponsibility with sensitive information. That is why Rove must be fired.

Iraq ≠ War on Terror: How to 'splain it

It takes years to turn public opinion (eg civil rights, Vietnam, Watergate) but it takes a sustainted, simple drumbeat.

Very Simple (Akin to one bass drum):
"Iraq had no Jihadist base, THUS they had nothing to do with 9/11. AFTER Bush's invasion Iraq became a terror cesspool."

More Sophisticated (Akin to a bass, snare drum, and cymbals):
"Bin Laden and most Jihadists hated Saddam becasue he was secular. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and his secret police would have wiped out any type of insurgency. Bush invaded under false pretences and completely mishandled the occupation. Therefore Iraq had become a sinkhole with terrorists rushing in from all over, and new terrorists being inspired. So ultimately, when Bush says "we must fight them in Iraq", there didn't used to be a "them" in Iraq."

Most Sophisticated (Whole percussion section):
"The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror, infact he created a whole new front in the war. Bin Laden hated secularists like Saddam. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 as the Administration led most Americans to believe.
The occupation of Iraq has been mishandled on many levels namely disbanding the army, alientating the world community, and failing to pacify the Sunnis by assuring them their place in a new government. Thus Iraq is now a political sinkhole.
Jihadists from all over are now pouring into Iraq. Saddam's secret police would have cut them off at the head. New young people are now being inspired to become terrorists.
Remember, Terror is an emotion. Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorism has been around since the beginning of civilization. Labeling everything under the rubric of "terror" is setting us up to fail with a poor choice of language.
Make no mistake, George W. Bush has worsened the problem of Jihadism. Any president who understood statecraft would have worked with the world to indict Saddam Hussein. There would have been a worldwide diplomatic campaign to unify world opinion. Iraq would have been flooded with so many inspectors that Saddams sovereignty would have worsened. If war broke out, the moral weight of world opinion would have been with us. Costs would have been shared.
The political control of Iraq would have immediately been put under the UN, without compromising the authority of American troops. The corpus of the Iraqi army would be in tact and there would be enough security to keep a functioning government, with an effective legal system and the infrastructure for elections. All groups, particularly the Sunnis would be assured a new place in the democracy. Then we would have fewer dead, more prosperity, and Iraq would be the true beacon for Middle East democracy.
But don't blame me, I voted for Gore and Kerry"