Originally posted: http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1070187342267070.xml
Dean riding steady course to party crown
11/30/03
STEVEN L. TAYLOR
Even though we are still about six weeks from the first actual contest of the 2004 primary and caucus season, I am willing to state with confidence that the Democratic Party's nomination is Howard Dean's to lose. Barring a total collapse of his campaign, or some shocking revelation about the former Vermont governor, I can't see any of the other Democrats catching him.
In
terms of Dean's opponents for the nomination, we can easily and quickly
discount the Rev. Al Sharpton, former senator and ambassador to New Zealand Carol
Moseley Braun and Rep. Dennis Kucinich - none of whom have ever had a shot at
winning the nomination. That leaves Rep. Dick Gephardt, retired Gen. Wesley
Clark and Sens. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards.
We can dispense with Lieberman immediately, as he is too conservative for the Democratic primary voters, and specifically his free-trade positions and support for the war in Iraq (despite his criticisms of President Bush) create insurmountable liabilities for his candidacy.
We can similarly discard John Kerry, who has demonstrated a marked inability to manage his campaign, having recently fired his campaign manager and having had several staffers quit in protest. Even more troublesome than staff woes is the basic fact that he has been unable to articulate much of a message. He is the Democrat's Bob Dole: a senator who believes his resume should be sufficient reason to qualify him for the nomination.
The last senator, Edwards, had only one thing going for him: He's from the South. But beyond that, he appears not to be able to present a reason he should be the nominee.
Clark, who also has an impressive resume, is none-theless a political neophyte who has had staff and message problems of his own. Further, he is vulnerable from attack on at least two key fronts: the "he's not a real Democrat" front (he openly praised President Bush and his staff as early as last year) and the "he has waffled on the war" front. Both are clear points of attack for Dean should Clark start to surge.
That leaves Gephardt, who has a good shot at starting off with a win in the Iowa Caucus as he did the last time he ran for the nomination in 1988. However, from there his fortunes tail off. He is less charismatic than Dean, and he, like Lieberman, is not well positioned to tap into the anti-war sentiment, as Gephardt was a supporter of the congressional resolution that gave the president authorization to use force in Iraq. Further, Gephardt's main constituency group, organized labor, has already defected in part to Dean. Both the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Service Employees International Union, two major public service employee groups, have endorsed Dean.
Dean comes to the table with several key strengths. The first is the anger advantage. There is a great deal of anger amongst Democrats aimed at President Bush. Many are still angry over the Florida recount, and even more are angry over the war in Iraq. No candidate embodies that frustration and articulates it better than does Dean.
Another advantage for Dean is that he is an "outside the beltway" player. This is especially helpful since all of the legislators who are running voted for the war resolution that authorized force in Iraq, blunting the ability of those candidates to be as effective a critic of Bush as Dean can be.
Further, as a former chief executive, Dean has a record of leadership that is difficult for a legislator, whose job description includes the need to compromise, to match. It is no coincidence that the last time a member of the House was elevated to the presidency was 1880 when James Garfield won. Indeed, history shows that it is very difficult for a sitting senator to win the White House (the last was JFK in 1960), while four of the past five presidents (Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush) have all been ex-governors.
Dean also has a clear money advantage, as illustrated by the fact that he has decided to eschew federal matching funds for the primary election period, as he rightly believes that he can raise more than the $45 million cap he would have been required to adhere to had he accepted public monies. Indeed, he has set his sights on the $100 million mark, which is not out of the question. His campaign has been effective at its use of the Internet to raise funds, and as of the Sept. 30 reporting deadline, he was ahead of all the Democratic candidates with approximately $8 million more in receipts than the second-place figures of Kerry.
Here's the bottom line: Most voters aren't paying that much attention to the Democratic field at this point, and when they start doing so in late January (the New Hampshire Primary is Jan. 27) and early February (South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arizona and New Mexico are all Feb. 3), they are going to tune in to see Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as the candidate who won at least half of those, perhaps more (New Hampshire is as close to a lock as one can get this far out, and Arizona and New Mexico are solidly Dean as well).
That will affect perceptions: Americans love a winner, and the media ignore losers. Add to that the advantages detailed above, and it's Dean vs. Bush in 2004.
Steven L. Taylor, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of political science at Troy State University. His e-mail address is sltaylor@troy.edu.