Democratic contenders' dreams depend on their differences

NEW YORK — John Kerry invoked the signature phrase of Robert Kennedy's tragically foreshortened presidential crusade in 1968, the George Bernard Shaw quote, "I dream things that never were, and I say, 'Why not?' "

Speaking Tuesday morning to a Communications Workers of America meeting, the Massachusetts senator declared, "I believe we have to be a party and a country that gets back to asking why not again. Why not, in the richest country on the face of this planet, why not stop being the only industrial nation that doesn't provide health care to every single citizen?"

And so it starts again, another presidential season in which Democratic contenders ask their audiences to dream. Candidates like Kerry already were campaigning hard before Al Gore gracefully withdrew from the contest. But the official trackside announcement — "And they're off!" — came the instant Gore announced his intentions on 60 Minutes.

Not since 1976, the year of Jimmy Carter's dazzling smile, has there been a presidential race so unsettled, so filled with anything-can-happen possibilities. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the serious field ends up as this closely bunched six-pack: Kerry, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Joe Lieberman, former House minority leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. John Edwards and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. How do you sort them out?

Domestic issues, the fertile soil that will nurture Democratic hopes of winning back the White House, do not yet provide much clarity. All of the Democratic hopefuls are unsparing critics of the Bush tax cuts, especially further rate reductions for the wealthy. Each would-be candidate is likely to offer his own plan to achieve Bill Clinton's deferred dream of health care coverage for all Americans. In short, the Democrats stand roughly united on their domestic agenda, even though they will eagerly try to highlight narrow distinctions.

Foreign policy, especially attitudes toward war with Iraq, offers more clear-cut differences. Lieberman and, to a lesser extent, Gephardt and Edwards are the hawks in the race. The more dove-like contingent consists of Kerry, Daschle and Dean. Such easy labels can be misleading, because all of the five Democrats in Congress voted for the president's Iraqi resolution. Moreover, we have no way of knowing whether Democratic primary voters will be debating Iraq a year from now, or whether fate will have closed the books on Saddam Hussein.

All of this brings us back to the hardy perennials of presidential politics: personality, electability and life history. Here is an impressionistic rundown of how the Big Six stack up:

Kerry: Unlike the other Democrats, he offers both a heroic Vietnam War record and a history as an anti-war crusader.

After 18 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry can rightly argue that he has the national-security credentials required to give a Democrat gravitas. But even though he may well have had the best year of any Democratic contender, will the voters embrace a craggy-faced senator who lacks the natural exuberance to be called "Kennedyesque"?

Dean: Through non-stop campaigning, he has parlayed his reputation as the widely praised governor of a tiny state into a newfound status as everyone's favorite long shot. Originally a doctor, Dean boasts the kind of outsider pedigree apt to appeal to The West Wing Democrats. But unlike his rivals, Dean has never raised serious campaign cash, a major obstacle once the campaign gets beyond Iowa and New Hampshire.
Lieberman: Thanks to Gore, he is probably the Democratic contender with the highest national name recognition. Thanks to Gore, the 2000 vice presidential nominee now can aggressively launch the campaign for which he has been prepping. But even though his hawkish views may be helpful in a race against the incumbent president, some Democratic primary voters may judge the Connecticut senator too conservative to be nominated.
Gephardt: He enters the race with two advantages: He has run for the nomination before (in 1988) and he has strong support from a major Democratic constituency (labor). But Gephardt also carries the baggage of having failed to win back the House for the Democrats in four straight elections. Freed from his congressional leadership responsibilities, Gephardt faces the challenge of reintroducing himself to voters who know him only from Capitol Hill press conferences.
Edwards: The most charismatic of the Democratic contenders, this former trial lawyer and one-term North Carolina senator also boasts the shortest political resume. As the only Southerner likely to run, Edwards has a natural appeal to Democrats eager for a fresh face. What he needs more than his rivals is a compelling issue (maybe a critique of the administration's civil-liberties record) to give his candidacy heft.
Daschle: The soft-spoken South Dakota senator inspires affection and trust among his fellow legislators. He benefits from his high-profile tenure as the man who gave the Democrats a Senate majority by orchestrating the defection of Jim Jeffords from the Republican ranks. But he is also the man who lost the Senate in the recent election. Will Daschle's understated skills at managing the Democratic caucus prove as useful in presidential politics?

So here's to the latest crop of Democratic dreamers as they set out on the road to the primaries, each comforting himself with Shaw's eternal question: "Why not?"

receive the latest by email: subscribe to walter shapiro's free mailing list