"Get moving"

The American people really don't agree with many of Bush's domestic policies, but at least in 2004 he got a pass on that because they saw him as a trustworthy, honest, keeping-them-safe kind of guy.

Well, I think the "they" was a slim margin, and a whole lot of "theys" didn't. Elections in America tend to be very close affairs, just like approval ratings are. Most presidents have stayed at a fairly low rate of approval, 60 percent or less, which reflects the fact that Americans see issues and politics not in simple terms but in complex terms.

But when they go into the [voting booth], they see the issue -- of who they can trust with the future of the country -- through their heart, while the [Democratic Party] tends to look at it in terms of policy competition.

And so, as I started to say, there's three things the Democratic Party has to do: No. 1 is full service. No. 2 is, across the country, nobody left out. No. 3 is we've got to be a party that the American people understands will fight and stand up for what we believe in.

Does that start with standing up for yourselves as a party?

It does.

If it's important that Democrats stand up and fight for themselves, how damaging is something like the intraparty squabbling over Howard Dean's recent comments about Republicans?

The more we can do to focus on the real issues that affect the voters, the more trust we'll gain from the voters. I think it's not too early now to begin the track record of laying out what the Democratic Party stands for, what we believe in.

We are, after all, a party of family values. We believe in the values that support families, like jobs and healthcare and education, and we've proved it. And without their concrete expression in effective policies, you can't support families.

Do you think the American people are growing tired of the Republican take on these issues?

I do.

So is it time for Democrats to come in with a forceful alternative view, or is it more a matter of letting Republicans hoist themselves on their own petard?

Democrats need a coherent vision of where we want to take America. I don't think there's been a time in recent memory when everyday life in America has been so affected by events abroad -- not just on national security and public safety but on our jobs, our healthcare, our retirement security. Nor has there been a time when what we did at home was so determinative of our future. For example, we're simply not going to be competitive at the levels we want to be in a global economic era unless we can really improve American public education.

And what can you do about issues like these over the next however long it is before you make a decision about 2008?

It's a matter of both formulating and speaking and acting. I laid out a strategy in the book I published in 2003, "Winning Modern Wars," in the sixth chapter. It's still the right strategy for America. It's even more current now than it was then about how we have to conduct ourselves abroad and what we have to do at home to meet the competition from overseas. And then I think we've got to encourage Americans to get moving.

"Get moving" in what sense?

On education, healthcare reform, dealing with the reality of poverty, heading off crises before they erupt into war, promoting better business practices at home and a better business environment at home.

It seems like that would have, if not the dual purpose, at least the dual effect, of shaping the debate and broadening your own portfolio a bit.

Well, I have a broad background. People in uniform have had incredibly varied careers, and they've done a lot of things. Because so many Americans don't haven't gone through the military themselves, they may be not aware of that.

In the military I was responsible for 44,000 schoolchildren in Europe. I had a number of hospitals [to oversee], I had to deal with problems of diplomacy, I had to deal with base-closure problems and job problems in the civilian economy, I had a big budget to manage -- in addition to being a sort of traditional general. And in the military, we got all the education that you could possibly want. I had a degree in philosophy, politics, economics. I taught political philosophy and economics. I was an assistant in the White House Office of Management and Budget. I saw how budget decisions are made. I saw how the president goes through the annual budget, and I worked the process with Congress.

Returning to the idea of standing up for what you believe in, I keep hearing the line, "If Kerry didn't stand up for himself against attacks from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, how could we know that he'd stand up for our country?" Do you think that's the right analysis of what Kerry did wrong?

I don't know whether that analysis is right, but I don't think that, going forward, it's the question we should be focused on. What I'd like to focus on is, how do we ensure that the American people trust the Democratic Party?

This country needs a strong two-party system. There's no doubt that the Republican Party has arrayed a group of ideas that they express fervently and fight for. There's no doubt that the Democrats have a strong body of ideas. What we want is for the public to understand that those ideas encompass all Americans and all of America. They'll keep us safe at home and abroad. We're the best party to lead, and we'll stand up and fight for what we believe in.

• View blog reactions