The Democratic din
The field of Democratic hopefuls seems so hopeless as 10 individuals try to set themselves apart
Date published: 9/29/2003
Pack of candidates puts the out party in quicksand
JUST THREE YEARS AGO a presidential election ended in a near dead heat. Viewed optimistically, that polarized result may speak to the health of the two-party system, but it's also possible that most Americans were evenly divided in voting not for their candidate of preference but for the one they found least objectionable. Are we headed for a repeat performance in 2004?
The Bush administration's dilemma is reflected in plummeting presidential popularity. It finds itself mired in a multifront war on terrorism that is proving anything but a cakewalk. Meanwhile, forecasts for economic recovery are postponed as the U.S. economy remains chained in place by rampant defense spending, soaring deficits, and lost jobs. The Census Bureau has just reported that U.S. household incomes declined last year, as they did in 2000 and 2001. Between the economy and homeland security, Americans have plenty to ruin their appetites and disturb their sleep.
It would seem a choice moment for the other party to offer a reasoned alternative. But while the mob of 10 campaigning Democrats may be nirvana for political junkies, the gang strikes most of us as a hodgepodge of talking heads whose rhetoric is mere bickering abuse--of the president and of each other. Until the field narrows, most citizens are going to tune out.
The recent addition of former general Wesley Clark to the throng and the movement to draft Hillary Clinton are muddying the water even more.
Can Mr. Clark, a retired four-star, muster a broad constituency and avoid the hypocrite label while bashing a commander in chief whose virtues he extolled just a few months ago? Does anyone think that the nation has recovered sufficiently from "Clinton fatigue" to embrace the junior senator from New York? Those candidates who have run for president or veep before have the difficult task of presenting themselves as something other than dusted-off losers. Why would they do better this time?
Some of the Democratic field are running on ego and little else. Several carry baggage or past votes that hurt their viability, either as a Bush replacement or a Democratic standard-bearer. Those who serve in Congress and voted with Mr. Bush to invade Iraq now fault the decision with obvious opportunistic posturing.
Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and an early front-runner, urged participants in Thursday's debate to remember that their "enemy" is President Bush and not one another. Poor word choice. If it's true that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," does this mean that Saddam Hussein is their friend?
In any case, it's futile for any of the 10 to try to explain, for example, a detailed economic plan involving taxes, jobs, deficits, and defense spending, and expect to be heard above the din. The most insightful view on any issue profits the candidates little if Americans must search to find it.
Until fewer messengers are left, and clarity comes to the fore, and a clear option to Mr. Bush emerges, this unwieldy field of Democrats is, in fact, each candidate's worst "enemy."
Date published: 9/29/2003
|
