Where did Kerry fail in making that case?

It really wasn't a failure on his part. I think it's just the natural consequence of running as a legislator. If you're a legislator, you have to make decisions in a variety of different circumstances, and you have to vote on bills and amendments all the time. And usually, when you vote, it's in the context of something you understand at the time you cast that vote. But in an election, [your votes] can be twisted. So, for example, Kerry voted against a series of defense appropriations and weapons systems. Well, there's probably a very good reason why both he and Dick Cheney voted against a number of those weapons systems. But [Kerry's votes were] used in the campaign to suggest to voters that this was a man who wasn't committed to keeping people safe.

What do you think are other areas in which the Democrats face challenges?

The second area is what I'll refer to as the values area. It's not necessarily our ability or inability to speak about our faith; it's the perception that the Democratic Party is a party of elites, whether intellectual or Hollywood, and that as a result perhaps it's more difficult for Democrats to understand where common folks are coming from. If the face of the Democratic Party is a movie actor or a movie producer or someone from a university who's got a theory about something, ordinary folks may think they don't really understand what it's like to try to find child care and pay for it on a fixed income, or to work two jobs and find time to get to Johnny's Little League game.

Why do Republicans get a pass on this? Bush is someone who doesn't know a whole lot about finding child care on a fixed income, either.

Because he comes across as a regular guy. He uses "regular guy" language that's simple to understand. Sometimes it's language that causes some folks to snicker. But you know what? There are a lot of ordinary folks out there that feel empathy and sympathy for him when he's in that circumstance.

And I think Republicans do a better job with language. They've spent a lot of money and a lot of time thinking about these things. Democrats have spent all of their time and energy on policies and programs that impact and affect people's lives. Republicans have spent all of their time on ideas -- how to couch those ideas, frame those ideas, and communicate those ideas.

Do the Democrats need to reframe the discussion, to reeducate the American people that the Democratic Party is the one that stands up for working people and regular folks?

In my view, our language has to be reframed in the context of the American promise -- the concept I grew up with in which each generation believed it had a responsibility to the succeeding generation to make life better. It's the reason why my folks sacrificed to make sure I had a college education, why people served in the armed forces and came back and built a strong and vibrant economy, then sacrificed to make sure that their children had a better life.

You've also talked a lot about values. When I read your State of the State address from this year, I stopped counting the number of times you used "values" as a way to describe the basis for various things you're doing in Iowa. Is that part of making a connection with voters again?

Absolutely. People have to understand that there's a reason, one they can relate to, why it's important to have funding for child care: that it's tied to a responsibility that we have, collectively, to make sure that our children have a great start. They have to understand that healthcare is every bit as important to someone's security as homeland security. And they have to understand that government's job -- at the state level, for sure -- is to help create an economy where jobs are created that will help support families and communities. This is a way of connecting people to their government.

We're out of power -- the last time I checked, anyway. We don't have the presidency, we don't have the Congress, we don't have the majority of governors. Yet we're the party that seems to be defending the status quo all of the time. You would think that the party in power would be the party defending the status quo and not proposing change.

Social Security is your Exhibit A here?

Yeah, Social Security, Medicaid, to name two.

What should Democrats be doing on Social Security?

I think what Democrats should do is say, "Mr. President, thank you for raising this issue. Retirement security is an important issue and needs to be dealt with. But it's not enough to simply talk about Social Security because, frankly, there are many more problems with healthcare security at this point in time. Unless we address the healthcare crisis in this country -- which is making our companies less competitive and making it more difficult for people to earn a decent living -- we aren't going to be able to generate the revenue to support a retirement system. So, Mr. President, let's talk about security in a broader context. Let's address healthcare security at the same time as, and in conjunction with, Social Security."

So that's the first thing Democrats should do on Social Security. The second thing is that, if at some point Democrats recognize that there's a problem to be solved with reference to Social Security, it will be incumbent on the Democratic Party to put a plan on the table. It's not enough -- people should expect more from us -- to simply say that we're against what the president is proposing.

Recent Stories