The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen makes a point that has been brought up several times here–that the Democratic presidential candidate might suffer in 2008 from a perceived weakness on defense:
Cohen notes some significant distinctions between then and now. In particular, he points out that the Vietnam War had more public support in 1972 than the Iraq conflict does now. He also repeats the liberal trope that the Swift Boat criticisms of Kerry were unfair (though they were demonstrably true). Last and perhaps most importantly, he seems to believe that the mere fact of having served in the military should exempt Democratic veterans from having to defend their records, as well as their views about current and future conflicts. (I am unaware that Cohen has argued that similar protection should be extended to leaders such as Senator McCain.) These points aside, Cohen is right. In their race to repudiate the Iraq war and similar conflicts, Democrats are in serious danger of losing their credibility on similar and related threats. Consider the case of Iran. U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies believe that Iran continues to strive to produce nuclear weapons, which would constitute a serious threat to U.S. interests and allies. How will the American public react to a the nominee of a party whose base is demanding (and whose candidates are promising) no military action in the face of such a threat?
