"The Right Angle"

Heidi Parent

As I See It…

Handicapping the Democrat race

by Heidi Parent
02/01/04

I had a conversation the other day with a good friend about the upcoming Presidential election. In viewing the 24/7 coverage of the Democrat primaries, not to mention the polls which show Bush losing to a Democrat, she is having concerns about Bush's chances at reelection. Not too worry, I told her. While it is, of course, possible that Bush could lose (after all, who'da thought at this time in the 92 campaign that Clinton would win), I don't think he will and here's why.

First and foremost, not one of the Democrats has anything going for him except his hatred and disdain for Bush. Now hatred and disdain may get you far in the primary, but not in the general election. Bush has been a popular President, his record of successes is clear, and the majority of Americans like him. All in all, barring any serious missteps, America is pretty happy with the guy. In order for one of the Democrats to win, they have to convince voters why they need to change horses. And to do that they need more than "Bush is a miserable failure" rhetoric. How is he a miserable failure and how would you do any better? So far we haven't heard an answer to either question.

Second, the media coverage. Of course the coverage so far has been all one-sided. With the exception of a few longshot candidates in a couple of states (and to even call them long shots is making their chances sound better than they really are), Bush is running unopposed, therefore he's not campaigning in the primary season. So in the midst of all the Democrat bombardment, it's hard for the average voter to remember Bush is even still President, much less recall a list of his accomplishments. But once the general election begins and Bush starts campaigning and running ads of his own, voters will be reminded and the playing field will be leveled.

Third, the two issues that will dominate this election are the economy and the War on Terror. The economy is rebounding quite nicely, thank you, so that leaves the war. Barring anything unforeseen, no way any of these guys makes a successful case to voters that they would do a better job than Bush at leading this country during wartime.

So at the risk of sounding overconfident, here's my humble take on the Democrat field:

Dean: Everyone this side of Poughkeepsie predicted this guy's explosion and it finally happened in a big way after he came in a distant third in Iowa. And even though he only came in second in New Hampshire, don't count Dean out just yet. The media seem to be relishing building up a candidate and knocking him down in an effort to not only make the race more interesting, but also to drag it out a long as possible. Both of which are fine with me. As a political junkie, the interesting part certainly appeals to me. And as a Bush supporter, so does the drag it out part. Making each candidate spend more money than they would like during the primary season can only help Bush when it comes to the general election. So watch for the media to soften their coverage of Dean while becoming tougher on the new front-runner. But since Dean does have a shot at being the nominee, let's look at his chances against Bush. Explosions aside, does America really want a president who "leads with his heart and not his head"? Especially during wartime?

Kerry: In light of the media building up and tearing down a candidate, let's not be too hasty in crowning John F. as the nominee. Remember at this time last month, everyone was fitting Dean for the Nominee Crown. So if we have learned anything from this crazy campaign, a sure lead is anything but. Moreover, while Kerry has won both Iowa and New Hampshire, is he going to continue that success once the campaigns move south? Now let's talk Kerry versus Bush. Kerry certainly has a shot at the nomination but I don't believe he has a shot at beating Bush. In today's media driven society, personality counts for a lot and Kerry just doesn't have it. The guy can't even fake excitement. And in every interview - even one as relaxed as "The Tonight Show" - he sounds as if he's giving a speech in the well of the Senate. Simply said, Kerry is Mondale without the electric personality. And that's saying something.

Sharpton: He is so polarizing that Michael Jackson has a better shot at being President.

Kucinich: Next

Edwards:

Just kidding, back to Kucinich. This guy is too loony to be elected president of a neighborhood watch group much less President of the United States. All you need to know about Kucinich is that he wants to replace the Department of Defense with a Department of Peace. No kidding. During a time when our country is at war and still being targeted by terrorists, Dennis wants to hold out a daisy and hope for the best. That may appeal to the Loony Left, but no way mainstream Democrats nominate this guy.

Edwards: John has a few things going for him, most notably his baby face and his unassuming manner. But he also has some soft targets: first, his inexperience having served only one term in the Senate. This is huge when you consider that in our nation's history, only two sitting senators have ever been elected president. Senatorial experience apparently doesn't count for much in the minds of voters. Second, his past as a multimillionaire personal injury lawyer. While many supporters see this career as a plus - proof he fought for the little guy - others have a hard time believing he was in it solely for principle when he pocketed millions in settlement money. Moreover, his past makes it pretty tough to take seriously his railings against rising health care costs when two primary contributing factors to these rising costs are bogus medical malpractice suits and huge jury awards.

Clark: This guy is not even a Democrat, he just plays one on TV. On paper he looks like the perfect candidate to field against Bush: a southern Democrat who is a decorated general, implying military credibility. Who could be more perfect to challenge a wartime President? But the problem for Democrats is that Clark is a living, breathing candidate. And one who is not only ignorant on a variety of issues (watch any of the debates) but also a novice. His inexperience as a candidate is already showing - numerous misstatements, bizarre off the cuff remarks, arrogant claims, petty put downs of other candidates revealing a huge streak of insecurity, the list goes on. If Clark has compiled this record of missteps while being treated with kid gloves, imagine what he will do once the heat gets turned up. Even if Clark wins the nomination, no way he beats Bush.

Lieberman: In my opinion, Joe would pose the biggest challenge for Bush. His views are the most mainstream of all the Democrat candidates (that is if one discounts the liberal transfusion he received while he was Gore's running mate). Moreover, he has a ton of political experience (albeit in the Senate) and he doesn't have the baggage of some of the others. But the fact is, what would be his strength against Bush ultimately works against him in the primaries. You see, mainstream views are attractive in the general election, but they are a curse in the primaries, especially in Democrat primaries. So no way Joe wins the nomination.

As for predicting who will emerge as the nominee, that would require thinking like a Democrat; something of which I'm not capable. It is also, quite frankly, a risk I'm not willing to take. Imagine crossing the mental threshold into Liberaldom, even just to make a simple prediction, and not being able to come back. Talk about hell on earth….