| |
Who Will Our Candidate Be?
Posted 7-9-2003
The next twelve months are going to be an extremely interesting and
important period of time for the national Democratic party. By this time
next year, we should know who our candidate for President will be and what
type of face he or she will give the Democratic party. We will know if we
are going to fight to make this Bush a one-termer like his daddy, or if we
are just going to put up token opposition.
If our party is afraid to
take chances, and tries to "out-conservative" the Republicans, we are
destined to lose. I'm not advocating for any particular candidate, but a
Liebermann or Gephardt are just too bland and their persona too worn out. We
cannot be afraid of attacking this Bush no matter what his polling numbers
are. Remember when Bill Clinton had high polling numbers, the Republican
Party looked at those numbers and conspired to knock them down. After years
of Whitewater and anything else they could dig up for $40 million, they
knocked his numbers down.
The mid-term elections were a
great example of the timidity of our national party leaders. They let Bush's
trumped up "war" intimidate them from attacking on domestic issues that are
of great concern. If that happens again in 2004, the Democratic party, no
matter whom the nominee, will lose. Also, the Democratic nominee cannot be
afraid to criticize the foreign policy of the Bush administration. When the
adventurism of this administration is compared to its rhetoric before taking
office, the Democratic nominee will have to hold Bush accountable for the
predicament we are in. It is almost certain we'll still be in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Who knows where else the guy who campaigned that we cannot be
the world's policemen will have us by November 2004.
I'm not sure who has the best
chance of beating Bush. Each candidate has strengths and weaknesses. Howard
Dean, who raised the most money recently, is being labeled as "too liberal"
because he opposed the invasion of Iraq and the Bush tax cut. Yet, as
governor of Vermont, he supported the death penalty and a law to continue to
allow for the carrying of concealed weapons, hardly the positions of a
liberal. As previously mentioned, Liebermann and Gephardt are just too
bland. Whether it is acknowledged or not, Presidential elections are about
television and imagery, not about intricate knowledge of issues. I guess
that concept is obvious by who is currently holding the office.
John Kerry appears to be a
solid candidate. But, I'm not sure how his New England flavor will appeal to
voters in the South and Midwest. Also, a sitting US senator hasn't been
elected President since JFK. John Edwards is an appealing, telegenic
candidate who perhaps can raise decent money. But, he may not be known or
organized well enough. Forget Al Sharpton, Carol Mosley Braun, and Dennis
Kucinich. They are running more to feed their own egos and really don't seem
to have real campaigns.
That leaves a dark horse
candidate who I think may offer our best chance at victory. That is retired
General Wesley Clark. General Clark seems to have a sensible grasp of
issues, is not viewed as having any particular political leaning, and
because of his successful career in the military, it will be more difficult
for the Republicans to attack him. That doesn't mean they won't attack,
they'll just be in a more awkward position when doing so. They'll likely
say, General Clark's experience as Supreme Allied Commander pales compared
to Bush's since he made that recent landing on an aircraft carrier.
The significant obstacle of
unseating GW Bush is made more difficult be the fact that he will have
raised more money than any other candidate in history. Remember when there
was outrage from the "right" that Bill Clinton went out and raised money,
yet Bush is a non-stop fundraising machine that receives no criticism for
the truckloads of cash he raises. The fact that he'll be so well financed
makes the issue of who the Democratic nominee is even more important. That
candidate will not only have to be able to raise enough money to get his own
message out, but will have to be able to absorb a barrage of negative
advertisements that will come from the plethora of right wing mouth pieces
the Republican Party uses for its more unseemly jobs.
I'm sure the odds in Las
Vegas of any Democrat unseating Bush are very long right now. Also, it is
likely that the people surrounding Bush remember daddy Bush's fall from high
polling numbers in 1991 to a defeat for re-election in 1992. But, a lot can
happen between now and next November. If the Democratic party and our
nominee try to play it close to the vest, and don't take chances, we are
certain to lose. If the candidate plays the role of underdog and says the
things that many Americans are feeling, who knows, maybe, just maybe, Bush
number two will experience a fate similar to daddy's. |
