They can try what Tony Blair did.
They ask [link|http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253002|What Happened?]:
The third "trust gap" that hurt Democrats was another hardy perennial: values and culture. And here the evidence of a Democratic handicap is overwhelming. As every exit poll has shown, "moral values" was the number one concern of voters on November 2 -- more than terrorism, Iraq, the economy, health care, education, or anything else. And among voters citing "moral values" as their top concern, Democrats got clobbered.
Overcoming the cultural trust gap is not just a matter of carefully calibrating positions on specific issues like guns, abortion, or this year's big wedge issue, gay marriage. Indeed, John Kerry did not repeat Al Gore's mistake of leading with his chin on such issues. The problem is that many millions of voters simply do not believe that Democrats take their cultural fears and resentments seriously, and that Republicans do.
As in so many recent elections, some Democrats believed they could trump the cultural concerns of middle-class families through economic appeals, asking voters to look to their pocket-books rather than their hearts when entering the polling place. If there was ever an election where this should have worked, it was this one, and it didn't.
[...]
There's only so much Kerry could do to change perceptions about him. He wasn't the best candidate the Democrats could run this year. If they wanted a Senate candidate, [link|http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/About/about.htm|Dick Durbin] from Illinois might have been a better choice (though of course he wasn't running). From the House, I don't know. Nobody jumps out at me, maybe [link|http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/bio.html|George Miller] from California. But he wasn't running either. A governor? Maybe [link|http://www.governor.state.ia.us/bios/vilsack_bio.html|Tom Vilsack] from Iowa. Maybe a recent democratic governor.
The Democrats needed someone who could point to their record on these morals/values issues if they wanted to combat Republican pictures of them. Kerry didn't do that well at all.
Howard Dean was a strong candidate in many ways, but much of the party establishment feared him. He was stronger than Kerry in some respects - he had a progressive record but also had a record of accomplishment in health care, budgets, etc. that Kerry didn't have. He was weaker in others - he had almost no experience with contested elections. But he could actually articulate what he believed. As Seth Myers said in an SNL [link|http://www.museworld.com/archives/001529.html|sketch] where he played Kerry in the first debate:
My opponent would like you to believe that I\ufffdve changed my position on the war. The fact is I have one position, and one position only. Was Saddam a threat? Yes. I\ufffdve said so since day one. What his regime a danger to the security of the U.S.? Of course not. Did he deserve to be removed? You bet. Was it the right action to remove him from power? No way. Was he in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Absolutely. Did he possess these weapons? No, he did not. And that has always been my position.
and he [link|http://stopstop.blogspot.com/2004/10/snl-review.html|continues]:
The fact is that I have consistently supported the war in front of pro-war audiences and condemned the war while speaking to groups that oppose it. That is not flip flopping, that is pandering and Americans deserve a president that knows the difference.
Like it or not, Kerry made it easy to be painted that way.
In short, you and BP both make good points. IMO, Kerry was going to have a very difficult time no matter what the circumstances were because he was a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts. He could have done better, though, in running his campaign and articulating his positions.
Cheers,
Scott.