Tomorrow, New Hampshire Democrats will select President Bush's challenger from a field of five major candidates. In ten months, they'll probably wish they'd had one more choice.
Frontrunner John Kerry is bright, hard-working and (according to everyone but Wesley Clark) a bona fide war hero. But let's face it: this "French-looking," Cheesesteak nibbling Bostonian defines the word " aloof" so well that he makes Al Gore look down-to-Earth. It's very difficult to see Kerry and friend Ted Kennedy connecting with swing voters in the Midwest and South and gaining the support they need to defeat the relatively likable man who occupies the White House today.
Plan B is Howard Dean, the one-time frontrunner now facing a must-win situation in his backyard. Dr. Dean brings the term "Angry White Man" to life and would no doubt stand up for his beliefs were he elected President. Unfortunately, his beliefs include homosexual unions, neutrality in the Middle East, socialized medicine and the idea that it's wrong to presume Osama bin Laden guilty for the 9/11 attacks but fine to suggest that the President knew they were going to happen.
Before he entered the race in September, General Wesley Clark was lauded as a terrific candidate based solely on two factors: his military record and his integrity. Ironically, the pervading view today is that Clark is a slippery character with an extremely shaky reputation within the military and a penchant for bizarre and contradictory statements. It's said that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, and that looks to prove true for Clark, who was originally billed as a straight-shooter but now appears to be lacking in conviction.
John Edwards turned in a stunning performance in Iowa and now has a legitimate chance at the nomination, but Democrats should think again before jumping on his once-vacated bandwagon. Edwards is certainly not the ultra-principled candidate he portrays himself as, having strategically changed his position on campaign spending and privatizing social security. Voters should also question whether a freshman Senator who fights Tort Reform at every turn should be the bearer of their message that President Bush "caters to special interests" and "isn't ready for the job."
Joe Lieberman is a classy Northeasterner opposed to the President's agenda, but he is conservative on many issues and not the best person to advance the Democratic platform. Lieberman's "conscience of the Senate" act also seems to be wearing thin, as voters certainly haven't forgotten the memorable (although perhaps understandable) hiatus some of his opinions took when Al Gore named him his running mate.
It's important to realize that intense scrutiny of any person will reveal a host of flaws. That said, the current cast of Democrats still wholly lacks a daunting ace: a candidate with the total package of experience, leadership, character, charisma and geography.
In reality, Democrats have lacked such a candidate since, well, since the days of Dick Gephardt.
Wait. Dick Gephardt?
Yes. Dick Gephardt.
When Gephardt lost the Iowa Caucus last week and announced his retirement from Congress, Democrats lost more than a respected veteran. They also lost their best chance at winning the Presidency.
Gephardt was everything Americans look for in Presidential candidates. Honest, likable and dignified, he would have fit the part well. He was down-to-Earth and possessed a rare combination of energetic youthfulness and unparalleled experience.
Most importantly, Gephardt was electable. A staunch supporter of labor unions, gay rights and universal healthcare, he would have had few problems getting the Democratic base to come out in full force Nov. 8. And as a committed and passionate leader in the War on Terror, he would be able to negate the President's strongest issue.
As if that weren't enough, Gephardt hails from Missouri, a battleground state President Bush won in 2000. Were Gephardt to win all the states Gore won in 2000 plus Missouri, he would be President. Were he able to win Missouri and neighboring Tennessee or Arkansas, he would cushion himself against a Gore state voting for Bush.
But qualified as he may have been, Gephardt was never the flavor of the month. Now, at age 62, his window has closed.
Thanks to the voters of Iowa, whose biggest problem with Gephardt was his support of a war that Bill Clinton and three of his opponents wanted to wage, his party's window might have closed too.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.