2003 Year in Review

Ten Little Democratic Candidates All in a Row

The 2004 presidential election is George Bush’s to win or to lose. Few serious observers of the American political scene doubt that fact, barring some unforeseen major catastrophe. If anything, the Democratic debates have illustrated the dearth of democratic talent rather than the breadth. The ten Democratic Party hopefuls lack any candidate among themselves who stands a chance in a showdown with the man from Texas. Even the Lady Macbeth of Chappaqua knows this election ring is not the one in which to toss her tiara.

The recent addition of General Wesley Clark to the group of wannabes does not raise the level of competition to uncomfortable standards as far as the Bush campaign is concerned. None of the candidates offers the platform or the charisma to challenge the esteem of the President in the eyes of the American public, despite the lack of quick, favorable turns in the stabilization of Iraq and in the homeland economy.

For the Democrats, Clark's leap to the forefront highlights the lack of a verifiable, strong Democratic contender. In the past four weeks, the lead in various polls has been held first by Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, then by former Vermont governor Howard Dean, and now by Clark. According to a recent USA Today poll, “Clark scored well even though almost half of those surveyed said they had never heard of him or had no opinion of him.”

Those who know Clark, however, give the following reasons for supporting him: He knows foreign policy based on his stint as supreme commander with NATO. As a retired general and Vietnam veteran, he’s aware of the need for national security. At the outset, Clark favored the administration’s Iraq policy, but Clark now labels Bush as a man “…who recklessly took us into war in Iraq.” While Clark does have potentially favorable qualities, the odds are that he won’t catch on with the public any more solidly than the other Democratic candidates.

Why haven’t Lieberman, Kerry, or Gephardt caught on with the public, or Dean, for that matter? Dean is the only one of the four who seems to have a consistent following. Lieberman, Kerry, and Gephardt are echoes of one another. They have too much in common: each supported the resolution authorizing the President to use force against Iraq and each voted for the tax cut.

Only Dean can stand removed from these positions. Yet, while he can claim immunity from the political foibles of his competition, Dean lacks the presence and the charisma to attract a large enough following to guarantee his nomination as the Democratic candidate for president – or if nominated, a large enough electorate to defeat Bush.

While it’s hard to project a possible Democratic Party candidate at this time, if circumstances remain the same, Democrats will most likely pick the ‘safe’ candidate to face Bush in next year’s presidential run for the money. And, all things considered, the ‘safe’ candidate is Dick Gephardt. He’s a middle-of-the-road Democrat who will most likely continue with the Bush Iraq policy, while pledging to implement programs to favor the middle class and the unemployed.

Why not John Kerry? For one, he comes across as being insincere. As one commentator put it, Kerry “never walks into a sentence without leaving himself a way out.” (Slate, “Dear John: Why is Wesley Clark getting John Kerry's role?” By William Saletan. Posted Tuesday, September 23, 2003) When he voted last fall to give Bush the authority to use military action against Iraq, he really voted for the ‘threat of war’ to force Saddam to renew UN inspections. Regardless of how Kerry wants to slice it, he supported the resolution authorizing the use of force.

Joe Lieberman, despite his distinguished senatorial career and his vice-presidential nomination in 2000, is not a creditable candidate this time around, especially among those Democrats who have a visceral dislike of George Bush. Lieberman’s unabashed approval of Bush’s Iraq policy does not sit well with the center of the Democratic Party. He may hold out some hope of snagging the vice-presidential nomination again, but it’s unlikely.

The remaining candidates offer little competition, either to the front-running Democrats or to Bush. On various occasions, the media has tried to push John Edwards but to little avail. Edwards has gone so far as to make three separate announcements that he’s a candidate, but he lacks experience and is too little known by the wider public. Carol Moseley Braun, Bob Graham, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton do not figure as strong candidates, either.

Unless there is a dramatic downward spiral in the economy and/or a major reversal in Iraq, Bush will win reelection in 2004. In fact, the Democrats seem accepting of that fact. No doubt, they are looking to 2008 when, most likely, the Lady Macbeth of Chappaqua, Hillary Clinton, will make her bid for the throne, and really give the American public a choice, instead of an echo.

We, the American voting public, may be surprised at whom the Republicans nominate to oppose Hillary Clinton in 2008. That may be the political story of the decade, indeed of the first quarter of the 21st century.

by William Driver, Guest Columnist
October 1, 2003