Brilliant Tactic or Unforgivable Blunder?

"A man always has two reasons for what he does--a good one, and the real one."

   - J. P. Morgan (1837-1913), American financier

Debra J. Saunders of the San Francisco Gate thinks the Democrats should have selected Howard Dean as their presidential nominee. In her recent oped titled "They Should Have Picked Dean" she explains why:

"Item: According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, three-quarters of Democratic voters opposed the war.

Item: The same poll found that 86 percent of convention delegates opposed the war.

Item: 100 percent of the Democratic ticket voted with GOP President Bush on Iraq."

Saunders fails to understand how the delegates to the convention could talk about how excited and united they were when "they chose a man with whom nearly 9 out of 10 of them disagree on the most fundamental issue--the war."

Frankly, it bamfoozles me too. It now appears that Kerry and the Democrats have decided to make the war on terrorism a major plank in their platform. He's going head-to-head with Bush on national security, claiming that he will do a superior job as commander-in-chief, and citing his bravery in Vietnam as proof that he has what it takes. "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president," Kerry said in his acceptance speech. And his delegates went along with him even though most of them are uniformly against the war. Why would he take this approach? And why would his delegates allow him to? Obviously, because he thinks it will win the election for him and they do too.

But will it? Will his claims of strength appeal to the yet undecided voters out there who could give him the electoral votes he needs to win the election? Or will his new hawk-like stance on the war on terror be viewed as hypocritical and give them another reason to believe he can't be trusted? Perhaps the lack of a post-convention "bounce" in his approval ratings answers that question for us. Do you think?

And what about his base, those who weren't at the convention? Were they happy with his approach? At least two of them weren't. Leftie Rory O'Connor on his blog Media is a Plural had this to say:

"I think the framing is all wrong, and that the relentless Democratic drumbeat of militaristic jingoism is precisely the wrong framework for contesting George Bush in November."

He feels duped and wants to know what has happened to his party:

"How did it come to pass that thirty years on we're still on Vietnam--only this time 'our guy' is the one who volunteered to go over and kill Cong, and 'their guy' is the one who did his best to duck out?

...the Democrats are trying to sell us a pig in a poke by trying to come off as something they're not, something even they don't believe in--and it will inevitably show. People aren't stupid, the camera doesn't lie (even when the politicians do) and sooner rather than later enough undecided 'swing voters in the battleground (here we go again) states' will figure out that the message is phony...So why switch brands? By focusing on war, the Democrats (Republicrats?) will play right into the hands of their opponents, because when Americans think war, they think Republican."

Progressive Bob Dreyfuss on his weblog TomPaine.common sense expresses similar views in a post titled "Kerry The Hawk." Dreyfuss pulls no punches in his criticism of Kerry's unwillingness to attack Bush on the war:

"The liberal left watched it all with grins frozen on their faces, telling themselves that it was all just election strategy--that Kerry was pandering to the center-right to get elected, that it was a brilliant tactic, that Kerry is really a dove. But I don't think so. I think Kerry is an outright hawk in hawk's clothing, albeit a multilateral one, and it's hard to see what Kerry would do differently than Bush.

...'I know what we have to do in Iraq,' Kerry lied to the DNC. He doesn't have a clue. What he thinks he knows is how to kowtow to the so-called undecideds and swing voters and convince them that he has a plan. But he doesn't, and I don't think these confused, lost voters are going to buy it either. Kerry's refusal to attack Bush over the war in Iraq is an unconscionable, unforgivable blunder." 

Brilliant tactic, or unforgivable blunder? I'm inclined to believe the latter. Why? Because I think the O'Connor and Dreyfuss viewpoints represent the thinking of many Democrats on this issue. I also believe the Republicans will make Kerry look silly in the coming months as they lay out his dovish Senate voting record on the very issues he claims he will be strong on--the military and national security. How will he explain that?

Update: Jon Henke at QandO gives us the skinney on how Europeans feel about John Kerry's foreign policy pronouncements. Hat tip to Instapundit for the link.