Why is Clark the only one making foreign policy a huge issue?

[Hippo_Tron]

It may just be what I've been observing but it seems like the other candidates are just criticizing the Iraq war but not really offering a comprehensive national security plan and really campaigning on it. I'm afraid that if they don't do so then they'll be walking into the trap of "democrats are weak on national security".

[blm]

Kerry's been doing it for over 2 years.

The press wouldn't give him much airtime, though. His critiques were too substantive and damaging for Bush who they were busy propping up at the time.

Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer

>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.
The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
There is, however, at least one benefit for Mr. Kerry in speaking out on those faraway places and problems. While his rivals sound as if they''re campaigning for the offices they already occupy, he sounds as if he is running for President.

In a sense, Mr. Kerry enjoys an unfair advantage that mitigates the burden of his home state. He''s a decorated Vietnam veteran whose Navy service may help shield him from attacks on his patriotism. Throughout his years in the Senate, that credential has allowed him to investigate and criticize disturbing excesses of American policy abroad, as he did when he probed U.S. aid to the contra gangsters in Nicaragua. (That rather lonely crusade made him a target of the notorious Arkansas Project, funded by Republican billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife to bring down President Clinton.)

Whether Mr. Kerry can engage the electorate in a discussion of America''s global responsibilities is far from certain. His own dispassionate style may hinder him. Yet he deserves great credit for reclaiming international leadership for his party when others cannot or will not.
>>>>>>>>>

[democratreformed]

1. They will

The reason it's a big issue to him is b/c he understands that it has a profound impact on all issues - including domestic ones - wasn't that proved on September 11?

[Dark Star]

2. Also, this will serve him well

in the debates with Chimpy.

Actually, this will serve Jon Stewart and SNL and us well in the satires of the debates between Clark and W this Fall.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. OMG That will be hillarious...

Clark: As president I will not send our men and women overseas to fight an unecessary war and will not waste the resources of our National Guard and Reserve.

Bush: What? I never went AWOL from the National Guard LIES LIES I tell you.

[waldenx]

3. Clark's slogan should be

if you agree with republicans that Dems are weak on defense then vote for me. Wait, I think Bush already has that one.
Or maybe he could say "Hey I'm not Bush" that worked well in 2002 didn't it?

[1971]

5. What he can say is...

Clark: "Go back to that ranch in Texas, George."

[arewethereyet]

6. because people vote their pocketbooks

actual polititians realize this.