Skin in the game

Skin in the game.

It's a figure of speech that's used to emphasize personal risk in any deal. Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator from Nebraska, recently used it when talking to The New York Times about Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain:

"He has, to use a gambler's term, skin in the game," said Bob Kerrey, a longtime friend of McCain. "It's among the most important things that people want to know about John McCain in trying to decide whether or not to trust him."

Kerrey was talking about the Iraq tour of duty recently completed by McCain's youngest son, a lance corporal in the Marines. The McCain campaign made no mention of any kind concerning James McCain's service until the story broke in the national media. Kerrey, who supports fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton in the presidential contest, was making the point that whatever John McCain says about the war cannot be dismissed as cheap talk at election time.

What the presidential candidates have to say about the service of America's armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will be one of the single most important factors in this presidential election. It is a defining issue that will not go away. To

say that the Republicans understand this better than the Democrats is a wild understatement. It is the Democrats' most glaring vulnerability. It's also one they show no signs of being able to overcome.

The Democrats have evidently read too many of their own press clippings. They seem to have swallowed the silly notion that they actually are deep thinkers who understand the world in complex layers. Thus, they have a hard time explaining things to us hayseeds. One commentator describing Obama's initial efforts to explain away the Rev. Wright fiasco actually wrote that his speech was too finely nuanced to survive the rough and tumble of modern politics. That must explain why Obama shed all of his nuance and ended up simply throwing the crazy reverend under the bus.

And Hillary thinks that her threatening to blow up Iran proves how tough she would be if elected. For all of her back-and-forth and stutter stepping over her initial vote to approve invading Iraq, what she is really saying is that if Iran does what she originally thought Iraq did, she'll send in the cruise missiles. And the difference is?

But for all of their supposed love of complex thought, the Democrats have blindly failed to appreciate America's true feelings about this war. They have been unable to grasp the double-edged idea that no matter how they feel about the war itself, most Americans, especially those Americans who have loved ones there, strongly support the troops.

After the Democrats tell us how they oppose the war, we want to hear how grateful they are for the service America's military has given in answering the call of duty from their country to fight that war. We want them to tell us that in spite of their opposition to the war, they acknowledge the great good that American soldiers have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. We want them to see past having President Bush on the political ropes for one second and tell us how fully they appreciate and support the troops.

Forget about the price of gas or the struggling mortgage market. Forget about Rev. Wright or American flag lapel pins or Hillary's sniper fire in Bosnia. There is no bigger or more important issue facing America than the war. And the way the Democrats talk about America's military will be the presidential election's deal maker or breaker.

If the Democrats can't start acting and talking like folks who've got some skin in the game, they'll lose us. We do have skin in this game. We also know a candidate who does.

Bill Donovan writes regularly for The Advocate. Send comments to news@advocateweekly.com.