"On point he made: Terrorism isn't an enemy, it is a tactic - trying to fight a war against terrorism is like (in WW II) trying to fight a war against blitzkreig."

This is a often used point, that Dems seem to think has some importance. But it isn't very well thought out. For instance could it not be possible to have war against communism? Using the above argument, how can you have a war against a system of govt.
The choice of phrase "War on terrorism" is apt, because describes what we are doing.

Let me give another example, imagine we lived in a world where cannibalism was such serious problem that rose to level of being threat to national security. In this world, in order make it clear that instead of merely employing law enforcement, one wanted to alert/mobilize the nation and employ miltary assets, you could say the we are in a War against Cannibalism. Also in this imagined world, would it not make sense to say "You are either with the Cannibalistic or against them" "Or if you knowingly harbor Cannibalistics you become the enemy".
Now, in world of lower technology and less connectivity, one might say, "Why fight a war against Cannibalism; why don't we simply leave them alone and if they want they can eat themselves".
We don't live in that world.

"Also, that "shock and awe" type weapons might be effective in fighting a conventional enemy, but are not effective (and perhaps counterproductive in some ways) against a diffuse enemy using terror tactics."

There is no such thing as "shock and awe" type weapons. Shock and awe was a campaign, similar to say "Rolling Thunder".

As for Gary Hart. All I can say that considering the other Dems he could be presidential material. But I never thought that grading on a curve was a good thing.