David A. Keene

Dem pols err by waging lost campaign
January 22, 2003

We live in an age of interminable campaigns, especially among those who lust after the presidency, which is, after all, the ultimate prize available to politicians. Thus, while the nonpolitically obsessed aren't even thinking about the 2004, George Bush's advisors and the Democrats who would like to send him back to Texas aren't thinking of much else.

The ranks of Democratic challengers are growing by the day as they ponder what happened in 1992 when the president's father was in the White House and Democrat after Democrat decided his poll numbers meant he couldn't be defeated. Many of them, therefore, decided to wait for a better opportunity and left the field open to Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.

Clinton's nomination and election might not have happened had other Democrats not gotten cold feet Clinton turned out to be a pretty good country politician and at least knew that the only way to get to the White House was to run.

Since politicians, like generals, spend more time preparing for past wars than future conflicts, many of them this year are jumping in to at least avoid missing an opportunity that could open up should Bush mess up the war against terrorism or fail to revive the economy. All of them seem to grasp the fact that in an evenly divided electorate, the winner of a national election is often the candidate who makes the next to the last mistake. They know too that if they can get to the finals, any one of them could be that candidate. They're going for it, it would seem, for the same reasons that football teams will do anything to get to the Super Bowl even if they know they'll be terribly outclassed underdogs.

As a result, we have everyone from Al Sharpton to Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, John Edwards and God knows who else running around, squeezing their fellow Democrats for cash and daring to dream the big dream. Others, who no doubt figure they're as bright, articulate and heavy as these guys are waiting in the wings.

Many of the declared and undeclared candidates have plans that might work. Others don't have much in the way of a plan, but figure lightning has to strike someone so why not them. I have always wondered why candidates who can't really figure out how they will get from point "A" to point "B" undertake the journey, but they do.

The problem all these candidates have to contend with is that the single most formidable Democrat could blow them away in a fortnight. That candidate is, of course, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), and if I were a betting man, I would bet that before it's over she'll do just that.

Other candidates have to worry about the fact that she has a secure base in one of the most important Democratic states, isn't up for reelection in 2004, can raise more money faster than any of them, has a real national base within her party, and is, well, smarter and more articulate than most of them.

Some have suggested that she'll wait until 2008, but that may be wishful thinking. Recent election results and poll data suggests that in the short to medium term, her party may be slipping. The 49 percent nation that Michael Barone described after the 2000 election has perhaps become a 52-48 nation today, and GOP strength could increase further by 2008. If that's true, this year's Democratic nominee may have a better chance than whoever follows.

What's more, Clinton isn't getting any younger and if one of the younger candidates wins this year and then defeats Bush, she may never get a shot at the big prize. So why would she wait? She already thinks she's qualified and has to believe she would be saving the country from the Republicans if she runs and wins.

Finally, she was there when her husband took on a seemingly unbeatable president and beat him. She would be the last Democrat scared by the polls.And that should scare the rest of the field.