NEW YORK, N.Y. -- For Democrats only: I think our field is
shaping up quite nicely. Several of our candidates are starting to look
promising indeed. Of course, only a political junkie would have sat through
the entire two-hour debate, and the fact that there are 10 of them works
against any one standing out. If the field isn't winnowed down soon, they
might want to consider dividing themselves into two groups for a debate so
we get more than these unsatisfactory soundbites.
I think they ought to keep Al Sharpton in just for the
entertainment value. Carol Moseley Braun is obviously the weakest link. But
you know, guys, she wouldn't stand out so painfully as the only one who ever
brings up women's issues if some of the rest of you did so occasionally,
too. I really like Bob Graham, but for some reason he doesn't come across
well. He voted against the Iraq war resolution, against the tax cuts and
against confirming John Ashcroft -- a much higher profile in courage than
several others in office. But even with all his electoral experience, he
doesn't sound sharp.
The real progressives are supporting Kucinich, and normally I'd
be in the "Down the Drain with Dennis" camp myself. My unparalleled record
for picking hopeless losers even extends to Republicans -- I always thought
Dick Lugar would make a good president. However, common sense must
occasionally assert itself.
Joe Lieberman does nothing for me. That leaves Dick Gephardt,
Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards and Wesley Clark, a more manageable
number. The general did OK, for a new guy, and he certainly has an
interesting face and presence. His early slip on the banana peel of how he
would have voted on the Iraq war resolution was a mistake no experienced pol
would make. You could practically see Never Answer a Hypothetical Question
tattooed on Clarke's forehead -- at least he's a quick learner.
I have a weakness for old labor liberals, so I'm soft on
Gephardt. We could always get him eyebrows, but he's been around a long
time. Hard to sell a new Gephardt. Some think he's the tortoise in the race
and will surprise us all in Iowa, but the all-your-eggs-in-one-basket
strategy never struck me as sound.
I'm also soft on John Edwards, who may be the best populist in
the race. He totally gets that you can take on George W. on the economy, and
he just hammers at it, with some good policy ideas, too. Like to see him
stay in.
But I suspect it will come down to Dean, Kerry and Clark --
always leaving room for margin of error and, as I frequently point out,
anyone who would try to call a race this far out is a moron. I'm not that
much of a John Kerry fan, so it sort of pains me to admit that I thought he
came off best of all of them in the Pace University debate. If he keeps up
that level of performance, I'll have to take back everything I've ever said
about his having "no Elvis." I'd like to ask his advisor, Bob Shrum, if we
can graft a sense of humor onto him.
You can tell which ones the R's think are dangerous by the way
they attack. They're pushing a storyline on Dean that the Washington press
corps has bought into, big-time. That Dean is "thin-skinned" and "riles
easily." There was much chatter on the chat shows about what was alleged to
be a Dean show of temper over Gephardt's comparing him to Newt Gingrich.
Aside from the fact that anybody would be insulted by being compared to
Gingrich, I must say the alleged flash of temper didn't show much on
television.
As usual, the D.C. press corps is missing the point. If Dean has
a temper, what about W., who becomes so defensive and testy whenever he's
questioned his handlers can't even let him hold a press conference? Reminds
me of the coverage in 2000, when the media decided the storyline was "Gore
fibs" and "Gore exaggerates." In fact, Gore did neither (see the chapter on
same in Al Franken's new book "Lies" or Joe Conason's "Big Lies").
Meanwhile, Bush was telling one whopper after another ("father of the Texas
Patients' Bill of Rights" and other memorable stinkers), with almost no one
in the media pointing them out. By now Bush has lied, distorted and
misrepresented so much, Gore looks like Honest Abe (see my new book,
"Bushwhacked").
The attack on Clark also reminds me of an episode in 2000, the
stupendously nasty whispering campaign about John McCain being a whacko.
Remember all those charming anonymous quotes about McCain's "rages" and how
"poor John" was a little loosely wrapped. (Naturally, I suspect Karl Rove.)
What I have never understood is why the D.C. press corps lets itself be used
like that. Anyone who has ever covered so much as a sheriff's race knows
better than to buy into, "Strictly off the record, he beats his wife." So
now we have Clark also being "thin-skinned" and "unable to get along."
There is something so high school about the D.C. press corps.
They love that stuff. The state of the nation seems secondary to them. If we
want to talk about courage under fire, what was Bush doing on Sept. 11? No
Rudy Giuliani he.
All in all, I think we've got at least five possibles here and
three strong candidates. I'm feeling positively optimistic.
To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other
Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web
page at
www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2003 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
