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.