WHO, OH, WHO, CAN SAVE US?

Worried Democrats See Daunting '04 Hurdles (Adam Nagourney, New York Times, 8/31/03)

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination shifts into a more intense phase this Labor Day weekend, with some party leaders worried about the strength of their field of candidates and fearful of what they view as President Bush's huge advantage going into next year's election.

Many prominent Democrats said that Mr. Bush might be vulnerable, given problems with the economy, and continued American fatalities in Iraq. But they said he could be unseated only by an aggressive, partisan challenge that built on Democratic anger lingering from the 2000 election, and by a nominee who somehow managed to survive a complicated nominating fight that was pulling their party to the left.

'It's going to be tough,' said Walter F. Mondale, the former vice president who lost his challenge to Ronald Reagan in 1984. 'You're trying to beat an incumbent who has all this money, and who has got the field all to himself, while all this infighting is going on in the Democratic Party.' . . .

"I think it is a weak field," said John Meyer, 41, an architect from Henniker, who said he was waiting to see if Gen. Wesley K. Clark would enter the race. "A lot of them are lackluster candidates." . . .

But many Democrats express reservations about both these New Englanders, and that is reflected in the failure of either to draw the institutional party support that typically rallies around a perceived winner. Some Democrats worry that Dr. Dean would prove an easy mark for Mr. Bush, given his liberal views and his lack of any experience in foreign affairs; others warn that Mr. Kerry is an awkward public figure who has run a timorous campaign. . . .

Associates of General Clark have said he has told them that he will probably join the race. But aides to most of the other candidates say he is too late to have a good shot, and they view him more as competing for a second spot on the ticket. . . .

Though the Labor Day weekend is a traditional demarcation point in American campaigns, the Democrats have spent much of the past eight months making policy speeches, raising money, nailing down supporters and traveling to states like Iowa, South Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and, of course, here in New Hampshire. But they are now preparing to move into a significantly more intense and higher profile part of the race. . . .

What is increasingly clear, several Democrats said, is that primary voters are not likely to choose someone who is promising to run a nuanced campaign against Mr. Bush. Dr. Dean has set the tone on that, as he made clear again today. . . .

One prominent Democrat said that while Mr. Bush was "eminently beatable," the Democratic nominating process seemed nowhere near producing someone who could do the job. "The trouble in 2004 is not that Bush is going to be strong, but rather than we are going to be weak," this official said.

There is so much here. Does anyone other than the Times, for example, still take advice from Walter Mondale, the only man ever to lose elections in all fifty states? There is also a lot that's not here. Has the Times not noticed that popular attention is being drained into California, making it even harder for the Democrats to make progress against the President and changing the traditional rule that people focus on the primary races after Labor Day? Why not mention the President's belief that August is a wasted month during which he doesn't bother to make policy speeches or counter attacks against him? Couldn't they spare a sentence for the effect on the Senate if Edwards has decided to give up a long-shot senate reelection for no shot at the presidency?

There is also less here than meets the eye. This is a column that gets written whenever a popular incumbent president is heading into reelection. Just in the nature of things, his party is solid and unified while the opposition has any number of second-tier people seeking its nomination. Because the president is popular, he looks like a giant compared to the pygmies running against him. Fighting an incumbent is always an uphill battle. The party is always split between those who think they need to draw sharp lines to show how empty the incumbent's platform is (Walter Mondale, anyone) and those who think they need to come as close as they can to the incumbent, while arguing that they will be more competent (Michael Dukakis).

The real point of this article, though, made at the beginning, the middle and the end, is that the best nominee is not running. The field is weak. Kerry is toast. Dean is muddling and too far to the right on various important issues. Gephardt will lose Iowa and drop out. Clark, who it might be thought is the kind of tough, strong candidate with a compelling story that the Democrat's need, is really only seeking the v.p. spot (true enough, as it happens). Does the New York Times know of any possible aggressive, partison candidate who could step in after Labor Day, who could rally and unify the party, who would not be wounded by vicious primary attacks, who could viciously attack the president, who could raise a lot of money, who could be strong not weak, who is not lackluster, who has a natural claim to build on Democratic anger lingering from the 2000 election and who can be presented as not too far left? Who is the New York Time's dream candidate and how do you spell Chapaqua? Posted by David Cohen at August 31, 2003 8:35 AM