2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

No previous presidential aide has had the power and influence that Karl Rove has in the White House of George W. Bush. He has been Bush's closest adviser since he first ran for governor of Texas. The authors of Bush's Brain write that during Bush's six years as governor of Texas "nothing important happened without his [Rove's] imprimatur." Yet Rove's work takes place behind the scenes; he rarely gives television interviews. Most of his activities are carried out in secrecy, and other White House officials are very reluctant to talk about what he does. The Bush White House is more clamped down than any other in recent history: Bush hates leaks, which he believes damaged his father's reelection chances, and Rove is his enforcer.

He speaks his mind and doesn't seem to be bogged up in special interests that is all too common in the carreer Washington politicos.

According to the U.S. Constitution, there's a presidential election next year. Assuming it takes place as scheduled, however, Republicans are demanding special ground rules: there will be no criticizing the august personage of "America's commander-in-chief." Any rival who points out that George W. Bush is arguably the worst president since the Civil War will be deemed unpatriotic.

Accusing Democrats of lacking patriotism is GOP boilerplate. Even before Kerry's "regime change" joke, Weekly Standard editor and neo-conservative guru William Kristol was sadly telling Fox News Sunday that "a certain chunk of the Democratic Party, a higher chunk of the liberal commentators, take a certain relish in the fact when something goes badly in the war. They...hate the Bush administration more than they love America. And that is a very bad situation."

David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter who takes credit for coining the "Axis of Evil" phrase, used virtually identical terms to describe another group of Bush critics. "[T]hey are thinking about defeat, and wishing for it and they will take pleasure in it if it should happen," he wrote. "They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country."

Frum, however, wasn't talking about Democrats, but conservative pundits Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan, who have criticized the war in Iraq as contrary to the national interest. Novak broke what he said was a 40-year refusal to respond to personal attacks by describing his own Korean war service and lifelong patriotism.

During the 2002 election, Republicans ran TV ads in South Dakota linking Sen. Tom Daschle, an Air Force veteran, with Saddam Hussein. They impugned the patriotism of Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, who lost two legs and an arm fighting in Vietnam, because he differed with Junior over details of a Homeland Security bill Bush himself had opposed until his administration's cover-up of pre-9/11 intelligence failures became a big issue. Astonishingly, it worked, largely because Cleland refused to dignify the smear with a personal response.

Sen. Kerry is a different breed of cat. Instead of cowering, he hit back. "I'm not going to let the likes of Tom DeLay question my patriotism, which I fought for and bled for in order to have the right to speak out," he said. It was an obvious reference to the fact that DeLay, like many in the GOP Chickenhawk Corps, avoided Vietnam. Indeed, DeLay once memorably complained that undeserving minorities had unfairly grabbed up all the infantry slots.

Kerry later amplified the theme. "The Republicans have tried to make a practice of attacking anybody who speaks out strongly by questioning their patriotism," he said. "I refuse to have my patriotism or right to speak out questioned. I fought for and earned the right to express my views in this country... If they want to pick a fight, they've picked a fight with the wrong guy."

"I watched what they did to Max Cleland last year," Kerry added. "Shame on them for doing it then and shame on them for trying to do it now."

Amen to that.

Bush and company have gotten away with the phony tough-guy act for far too long. Frightened and confused since 9/11, Americans don't necessarily want to go to war with every tinpot dictator in the Islamic world.

But neither do they trust a leader who won't stand up for himself to stand up for them.

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 9, 2003 - Tonight I attended the first gathering of the nine candidates for the 2004 Democratic nomination for President. The event was hosted by the Children's Defense Fund, and the questions and statements focused to a large extent on policies affecting children.

Overall the event was encouraging. Many good policies were proposed, many witty remarks made. It went beyond opposing the worst of the current administration to proposing aggressive new ideas. The candidates did not attack each other, and they did attack George W. Bush. The middle-of-the-roaders like Kerry and Gephardt said some better things than they might have had Sharpton, Kucinich, Dean, and Mosley-Braun not been there. Lieberman seemed to have found himself in the wrong party - and that's the good news: the crowd and most of the candidates sounded like a real live opposition party, not Republican Lite. Graham and Edwards are the candidates I haven't mentioned yet, neither of whom impressed me much.

The bad news is that I can't take the comments I liked from these nine people and combine them into my ideal candidate. We have to pick one of these individuals, each of whom has shortcomings. Eight of them are nowhere near the walking disaster our current President is. Two of them have the potential to be great.

Let's look at them in order, from best to worst, in terms of their apparent ability to serve well as president, setting aside for the moment questions of whether they have enough money or whether enough Americans will vote for someone of their race or gender.