How Common Ground of 9/11 Gave Way to Partisan Split

The "new normal" meant that it became essential for anyone seeking the presidency to establish credibility on national security. Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) won the Democratic nomination in 2004 in part because his résumé included combat service in Vietnam, which Democratic primary voters regarded at the time as an essential prerequisite to winning the general election.

John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, found himself on the defensive in the primaries because he lacked foreign policy experience. Edwards, then a first-term senator from North Carolina, spent the two days before Sept. 11 meeting with advisers about running in 2004. "I woke up the next morning and went to work, and 9/11 happened," he recalled.

When he resumed campaign planning in the spring of 2002, Edwards had concluded that voters would have a new set of criteria for evaluating candidates: How tough are you? Are you tough on terrorism? Are you tough in what you're willing to do? Are you tough in your ability and willingness to use military force?

Today he believes the contours of those criteria are different still. "I think 9/11 made national security/foreign policy a dominant issue in presidential races," he said. "I think Iraq changed the criteria by which people evaluate what matters."

No one knows what the state of Iraq will be in 2008, or the state of the world generally. But there is little doubt that the threat of terrorism will continue to shape candidacies and campaign strategies.

Potential 2008 candidates such as McCain and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) will boast résumés that speak of their experience in times of crisis and conflict. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) will point to what she has learned on the Armed Services Committee and to her support for the war, if not always the way Bush has handled it. Newcomers such as Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and former Virginia governor Mark R. Warner (D) will be under pressure to demonstrate their capacity to deal with the new world.

Images and Impacts

---

The first television commercials aired by Bush's reelection campaign in the spring of 2004 featured brief footage of flag-draped remains being carried out of the ruins at Ground Zero. The ad sparked instant controversy, with critics charging the Bush team with exploiting Sept. 11 for political gain.

Bush was determined to use 9/11 in his campaign, and, knowing that any ad featuring the attacks would be controversial, his advisers had shown the opening commercials to groups of voters before putting them on the air.

"We discovered that people absolutely wanted to talk about it, felt it was totally appropriate and felt it would have been odd if we hadn't talked about it," said Mark McKinnon, Bush's media adviser. "They felt 9/11 was a defining moment for America. . . . They felt it was a moment that brought us all together."

To help gauge how effects of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as the role of the war in Iraq and the national economy, could influence voters this November, The Post conducted the online experiments for use in this article, under the direction of Iyengar.

A representative sample of 2,529 adults participated in the experiments, which were conducted June 29 through July 5. The online tests were conducted by Polimetrix, a California research company, with participants recruited by the firm.

Individuals were randomly assigned to view one of eight actual news broadcasts aired by one of the major television networks. Each brief video featured one or more distinctive visual images in addition to narration. One group saw a news video showing smoke billowing out of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Others saw news clips reporting specific events in the war in Iraq, while still others saw clips reporting on economic developments.