If Election Hinges on Iraq, Kerry May Need Added Firepower

Conventional wisdom among Democratic strategists has been that sooner or later national security will recede as a concern and bread-and-butter domestic issues will decide the presidential election. One senior party operative recently offered what he called the Google theory of 2004: If an Internet search about the campaign the day after the election turns up more references to Iraq than to the economy, that probably means President Bush has won.

But the continuing violence in Iraq is shaking these assumptions. It’s no longer certain that domestic issues such as jobs and healthcare will displace Iraq as the central focus of public attention and the campaign debate. Nor is it certain that sustained attention on Iraq will benefit the president.

This transformed landscape will challenge both Bush and his Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

The dangers for Bush are most obvious. Iraq is his war. Bob Woodward, in “Plan of Attack,” his extraordinary new book on the administration’s march to the invasion, describes Vice President Dick Cheney as “a powerful, steamrolling force” for war.

Bush emerges from Woodward’s portrayal as more veiled and even inscrutable. Yet Bush’s determination to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein seems just as unshakeable as Cheney’s. In this telling, it is Bush, more than any advisor, who drives the country to war.

And it is Bush who has the most at stake in the outcome. Recent polls show some evidence of the nation rallying around the commander in chief, as it often does when U.S. troops are under fire.

But as the death toll mounts -- April was the deadliest month for American troops -- so do doubts about Bush’s strategy for stabilizing and securing Iraq.

A CBS/New York Times survey released last week showed that approval of Bush’s handling of the war plummeted to 41%, dragging his overall approval rating below the 50% level that historically marks the dividing line between presidents who win reelection and those who don’t.

Those numbers are certain to fluctuate in the months ahead. Yet they underscore the threat to the president. The centerpiece in his case for reelection is that he has been a resolute and effective manager in the war on terrorism. His signature contribution to that war has been the invasion of Iraq. Last week’s poll numbers suggest that if Americans come to see that decision as misguided, or the occupation as failing, the central arch of Bush’s support could erode.

But that doesn’t mean Kerry will automatically benefit. Instead, he faces a paradox. The more Americans focus on Iraq, the more they seem to weigh credibility as commander in chief when choosing between the candidates.

And despite their anxieties about the occupation, far more Americans say they trust Bush rather than Kerry to safeguard the nation’s security.

Kerry may narrow that gap somewhat as more voters learn about his experience as a combat veteran in Vietnam and his nearly 20 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But that story alone probably won’t solve his problem, especially with the Bush campaign spending so heavily on television advertisements that paint Kerry as weak on defense.

Perhaps the most pressing challenge for Kerry is to find ways beyond his biography to reassure Americans that he can be trusted to protect their security.

One of Kerry’s best opportunities to send that message could come through his selection of a running mate. So far, though, there’s little evidence that the campaign is thinking in that direction. The rumors in Democratic circles are focused almost entirely on those who would help Kerry most on domestic issues: Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa.

Conspicuously missing from that list are candidates who could reinforce Kerry’s national security credentials.

But two might deserve more attention than they have received. Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, who won a Medal of Honor in Vietnam, was an early hawk on Al Qaeda and Hussein and has reemerged through the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks as a powerful voice for a comprehensive assault on terrorism.

Even more intriguing is a name that has attracted even less attention: former NATO Supreme Commander and 2004 Democratic presidential contender Wesley K. Clark. The irony is that Clark probably would be generating more buzz as a potential vice president if he hadn’t sought his party’s nomination. The consensus in Democratic circles is that the retired Army general dimmed his prospects through an uneven performance on the campaign trail.

Yet those experiences left Clark with more preparation for a vice presidential campaign than if he hadn’t run at all. And he has proven one of the Democrats’ most acute analysts and effective messengers on national security: His speeches on Iraq last fall, which called for broadening international participation in the occupation and warned against dismantling the entire Iraqi army, look prescient now.

Last week, Clark underscored the potential value of a running mate who once wore four stars on his shoulders and a Silver Star on his chest when he responded to recent Republican attacks on Kerry’s activities in and after Vietnam with a ringing challenge: “Those who didn’t serve, or didn’t show up for service,” he wrote, “should have the decency to respect those who did ... “

As a candidate, Clark demonstrated plenty of flaws. But few other Democrats could deliver a punch like that with such authority. And none could better symbolize Kerry’s determination to rebuild relations with traditional allies than the man who directed, in Kosovo, the one war NATO ever fought. In an election that could revolve more around guns than butter, Clark may pack more firepower than any of the other names on Kerry’s list of running mates.

*

Ronald Brownstein’s column appears every Monday. See current and past columns on The Times’ website at www.latimes.com/brownstein.