Democrats Trot Out an Uninspired Lineup

Insight on the News, May 27, 2003

Byline: Jamie Dettmer, INSIGHT

As precampaign presidential debates go, the 90-minute head-to-head in early May between the nine declared Democratic aspirants hardly was inspiring stuff. The Democrats can count themselves lucky that few voters bothered to watch the organized squabble and that only one small cable-TV station felt it necessary to air the lackluster debate live.

The participation in the name of inclusiveness of the no-hope Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, former U.S. senator from Illinois Carol Moseley Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York City only added to the impression that the Democrats are a party of losers. But even sliding that trio aside, and trying to forget them, Democrats should worry more than ever about their prospects of unseating George W. Bush in 2004 to win the White House.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut came across as the surprising best of the candidates and was much more muscular and clear cut in delivery than in his face-off with Dick Cheney in the 2002 election. He had a good point when he insisted that "no Democrat will be elected in 2004 who is not strong on defense" and of course he wasn't shy in emphasizing that he supported both the 1991 and 2003 wars against Iraq. He carved out space also in the crowded field as a centrist on domestic issues.

But while Lieberman's pro-war stance will do him considerable good in the eyes of swing voters, it is likely to damn him with many a Democratic primary voter and may prevent him from securing the party's nomination. And while strategists from rival campaigns praised his performance, they also have questioned whether Lieberman's message on domestic issues is too conservative to sell to Democratic primary voters.

After Lieberman, the other candidate who received praise from the media was Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, the retread who is the subject of this week's Insight cover story. He roundly was attacked by the others for his big idea to give corporations tax credits to pay for health insurance for their workers and to finance the program by rescinding all of Bush's tax cuts. But for all the bombs lobbed at the idea by his rivals, the proposal likely plays well with Democratic activists and primary voters, although in a general election raising taxes traditionally is a way to lose a race. With middle-class families finding it hard to pay their bills now, say political insiders, they likely won't be thrilled by the idea of paying more to the government.

From the point of view of the Gephardt camp, the former House Democratic leader's plan had the virtue of emerging as a focal point in the debate, forcing the rival aspirants to argue on his turf.

Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was telegenic in the debate but his folksy populist line about being the son of a mill worker was overplayed and failed to answer the biggest question about him: Successful tort lawyer though he may be, isn't he a tad light on political experience? In fairness, the lack of a resume full of high-level political jobs or a long career on Capitol Hill did no harm to George W. in 2002, but then he had his party's establishment behind him ... and election strategist Karl Rove, possibly the most able Republican campaign tactician since the late Lee Atwater.

But at least Edwards offered the best lines of the debate when it came to attacking Bush, something some of the candidates forgot to do in their efforts to wound and maim each other. Edwards' comment? "Just because you speak the language of regular Americans does not mean your agenda is not the agenda of corporate America. Just because you walk around on a ranch in Texas with a big belt buckle doesn't mean you understand and stand up for rural America."

Of the other media favorites, the ungalvanized and unsmiling Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was disappointing and fell back for most of the debate on stump-speech points. The only time he appeared truly engaged was when he mixed it up with antiwar leftist Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, over Iraq and argued about their personal "courage" credentials. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam vet who nonetheless founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War, should have let the Dean sneers go. By engaging he made himself smaller and demonstrated that Dean got under his skin. Their clash allowed the confrontational Sharpton to present himself as a conciliator intervening to try to stop their squabbling. Sharpton as a conciliator? Now that's casting against type.

The remaining aspirant, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, did absolutely nothing to change his reputation as Mr. Dull. And during the debate he seemed to be running for the office of president of Florida, so often did he refer to his ability to win the state in a presidential race. Given that he was a sitting senator at the time of the 2000 elections and could not deliver the state for the far better-known Al Gore, he appeared only to be posturing.

What came through loud and clear throughout the debate is how untogether the Democrats are and how the bitter scar running across the party between hawks and doves is unlikely to be healed in time for the election. None of the candidates has as yet developed a compelling message that can unify the party and, with the exception of Edwards, none of the aspirants has much charisma. Kerry, who has a fine mind and the credentials of a heavyweight, doesn't appear to be able to muster the charm that's needed to woo voters in this television age.