||"A historical political resource."
The best candidate for the Democrats?
|Last Edited||ArmyDem Jul 23, 2003 04:13pm|
|News Date||Wednesday, July 23, 2003 06:00:00 AM UTC0:0|
|Description||By William Rusher |
I'll admit I'm prejudiced, but the nine Democratic presidential candidates currently on display in various forums around the country strike me as the sorriest passel of losers since the Keystone Kops.
You can begin, as everybody rightly does, by eliminating the Bottom Three: the Rev. Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley Braun. None of the three seriously thinks that he, or she, has a chance. Sharpton is in the game in the hope of being one of the power brokers at the Democratic convention, as Jesse Jackson used to be. Braun has been introduced into the mix by Democratic strategists who hope she can weaken Sharpton by drawing off some of his black support. And Kucinich -- well, I guess Dennis just had nothing better to do than run for president.
That leaves six serious contenders: Massachusetts Sen. John (The Hair) Kerry, who boasts (and I do mean boasts) of a distinguished war record in Vietnam; Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, whose moderate views on many subjects have thus far prevented him from inflaming a party largely controlled by its left wing; North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the handsome young trial lawyer who has the advantage of being a Southerner (think Carter and Clinton) but whose entire political career comes down to less than one term in the U.S. Senate; Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, the former House minority leader, who is slightly shopworn, but has been around for a long time and has earned the gratitude of the labor unions; Florida Sen. Bob Graham, a gentlemanly Southerner of the old school who has surprised everybody by charging that President Bush lied us into war in Iraq; and last -- but by no means least -- former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose strategy seems to be to run to the left of his major primary opponents, especially Sens. Kerry and Lieberman.
Granted, it's a long time from now till November 2004, and the Democrats console themselves with telling the grand old story of how Bush's father came off the astronomic highs he had hit after the Gulf war and lost to Bill Clinton over economic issues. But Bush shows every sign of being aware of that danger, and seems likely to pulverize whichever of the above six lambs the Democrats decide to sacrifice.
So if I were a Democrat, I would be busy looking for someone else -- someone with a distinguished career in some field other than politics, which has offered scope to demonstrate a capacity for leadership; a candidate who is personally attractive, without notable blemishes, and who can support any policies that look attractive, because he has no record of supporting others.
|Article||Read Full Article|