Washington Watch: DEAN VS. UN-DEAN
Dr. James J. Zogby, President, Arab American Institute, September 22, 2003

With the entry of General Wesley Clark into the race for the Democratic nomination to challenge President George W. Bush, the field appears to be complete. Until the Clark announcement, former Vermont Govern Howard Dean was the only Democrat who seemed to bring energy and excitement into the contest. In fact, Dean's rapid rise to the top of the field of nine candidates had not only been a source of surprise to many in the media and the political establishment, it also caused concern and some irritation.

Dean's insurgent, liberal and self-styled "plain-speaking" approach had won him the support of a core constituency who were looking for a candidate who would "stand up for his beliefs". While Dean ran a campaign that sought to define Democratic principles, some Democratic leaders criticized his approach as polarizing and "too liberal". They believed that to beat George Bush their party needed a moderate and a centrist.

Running against a field of nationally recognized Democrats, at first, Dean was given little chance of success. Given the line-up of the early states to hold primary elections, analysts had projected that Dean's opponents would emerge victorious. In Iowa, for example, it was assumed that former Majority Leader, Congressman Richard Gephardt from the neighboring state of Missouri, would have the edge. New Hampshire was thought to be a easy win for Vietnam war hero Senator John Kerry, whose home state Massachusetts is next door. The next important contest in South Carolina was projected as a possible victory for southerners Senator John Edwards and Senator Robert Graham or a conservative Democrat like Senator Joseph Lieberman. But none of the projections have so far been borne out.

Dean exploded onto the scene with an unorthodox campaign that caught the imagination of the Democratic faithful. His fervent opposition to the Iraq war and to President Bush's tax cuts-both anathema to the party's moderates-won him early support. His creative use of the Internet has won him 400,000 volunteer supporters and helped his campaign raise record amounts of funds. Finally Dean has advertised early in targeted states hoping to increase his visibility and then embarked on an ambitious multi-state campaign tour that drew record crowds of supporters and significant national media attention.

All of these combined, propelled Dean to the top of the polls in several states. He is now leading by double did gets in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is tied with the others in conservative South Carolina and in the huge Democratic prize-California, Dean now holds a comfortable lead over the rest of the field.

Dean's rise, the lukewarm performance of Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and Edwards, and the concern of the party's moderate establishment that Dean's anti-war liberal insurgency could spell defeat in November 2004, left an opening that many felt needed to be filled.

Enter General Clark.

As one pundit proclaimed, Clark is the "un-Dean". While some projected that it might be too late to enter the contest and others worried that Clark, a political neophyte, would have trouble raising money and organizing an effective campaign staff, the early signs are that, at least on these counts, Clark will exceed expectations. His campaign staff reads like a "who's who" from the Clinton 1992 and Gore 2000 Campaigns-including some of the leading fundraisers from both efforts.

With almost one-quarter to one-third of Democrats still undecided about a candidate and with the support of many of the candidates still being quite soft-there is, in fact, a significant opening for a new candidate to enter.

What remains unclear is whether Clark will succeed as a candidate. One analyst described the situation as follows "right now Clark is a concept, the question is will the concept translate into a candidate"-meaning how well will he perform in the rough and tumble, give and take world of electoral politics. And this, only time and trial will tell.

If Clark succeeds, there is no doubt that other campaigns will be hurt. He can out "war-hero"" Kerry, and potentially be a more charismatic, national security oriented moderate than Lieberman. And, it is believed, his southern credentials will stand up against Edwards and Graham.

At this point, the two leaders who may be least effected by a successful Clark are Dean and Gephardt. The latter has strong rank and file union support and the endorsement of many of organized labor's most important organizations. Dean, on the other hand, has organized a core group of faithful supporters who seem to be deeply committed to his effort.

If, on the other hand, Clark stumbles or displays traits that resonate negatively with the press and public, the very campaigns he was expected to hurt may be strengthened. The same, incidentally, may be true for Dean. Should he stumble at some point, liberal Dennis Kucinich may pick up steam.

In any case, the Democratic contest has now taken shape and promises to bring some excitement to the Fall and Winter political seasons.

Democrats are feeling emboldened. With President Bush facing new questions about his handling of the Iraq war and with the U.S. economy showing continuing signs of distress, the President's approval ratings continue to fall. Recent polls now show that voters favor replacing Bush in November 2004. While this can change in the next year, the debate facing Democrats is clear. Do they want to choose a candidate self-described as an "electable moderate", or do they want a candidate self-described as a "fighter for principles".

Both approaches have a political case to make. While some polls may show that a moderate can coble together a majority vote, others suggest that the country is so evenly divided and partisan that what is required to win is a candidate who can excite and energize the faithful to vote.

Last Thursday Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said he "probably" would have voted in favor of the congressional resolution authorizing the liberation of Iraq. But on Friday, as the Associated Press reports, he said: "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/09/19/national1705EDT0659.DTL

So Clark is pro-war on Thursdays and antiwar on Fridays. And that's just in September. On Mondays in October, it turns out, he favors a rush to war. In the Oct. 14, 2002, issue of Time, Clark said the U.S. should "take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important." Had President Bush followed Clark's advice, America and its allies would have liberated Iraq by Thanksgiving, not dawdled until the spring.

http://www.greatertalent.com/clarktime1002.shtml

Some, including the left-wing media watchdog group that styles itself Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, accuse Clark of being inconsistent. Clark's defenders will no doubt argue that this charge is unfair and smacks of religious bigotry. As Slate notes, Clark is Catholic and has a Jewish father. Is it "inconsistent" to eat meat on Thursday and fish on Friday, or to spend Saturday at the synagogue and Sunday watching football?

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088585/

Seriously, though, why is Clark's disordered thinking on Iraq big news to begin with? After all, in 1991 Bill Clinton took a similarly weaselly position on the Gulf War, saying: "I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made." Yet when Clinton ran for president, no one much cared.

The difference is that George W. Bush, unlike his father, has somehow managed to become the dominant figure in the DEMOCRATIC Party. The party's entire foreign-policy debate centers on an issue Congress resolved in the president's favor nearly a year ago. Clark and his fellow candidates are fighting over whether a vote to authorize war was a vote to WAGE war or just a bluff. The whole argument is over Bush's policies; the closest thing any Dem has to a policy for dealing with Iraq is the argument that the U.S. should bring in more international troops and money to support the reconstruction effort--which happens to be just what Bush is attempting to do.

It's the same story on economic policy. The debate is all about the Bush tax cuts, the norm against which all the Dems measure their own positions. Some favor repealing them, while others want to repeal only parts of them. Every time they talk about it, they remind the voters that President Bush cut their taxes. Thanks, President Bush!

To be sure, a few Democrats have their own positions largely independent of Bush. But they're all on the lunatic fringe. If the Democratic Party were a carnival, Al Sharpton would be the barker, and Bob Graham and Dennis Kucinich would be sideshow geeks. The other seven candidates would all be fun-house mirrors--only when you look at them, you see a distorted image not of yourself, but of George W. Bush.

When was the last time you heard Dick Kerry or Howard Clark say anything that wasn't about Bush, his policies or his "lies"? Without Bush, these guys are nothing. Which means that if by some chance one of them were to defeat Bush next November, the incumbent would become an irrelevancy, rendering the victor a nullity.

The implications of all this are worrying for Democrats. If Bush's opponents depend on Bush for their very existence, then to say that any of them can beat him is to say no one can beat him. Unless all this is a vast conspiracy to get Hillary to run, Bush's re-election is a logical certainty.

Dean Makes Gains in Iowa
Former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean continues to build support in search of the Democratic presidential nomination. In September 8-9 polling of likely Iowa caucus voters, Dean captured the lead with 23%, in second was Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt with 17%, and in thrid was Massachusetts Senator John Kerry with 11%. It appears that Senator Joe Lieberman will avoid Iowa altogether.

With Tools Like These...
President Bush and his Administration have said that they need the tools to fight terrorism, despite the rather large and aggressive tools that they have garnered through the Patriot Act. But instead of trying to get a whole new package, they are going to try and get them piecemeal. A new bill, HR 3037, the "Antiterrorism Tools Enhancement Act of 2003," has been introduced in the House of Representatives. Among the issues dealt with in the act are nationwide search warrants in terrorism cases and administrative subpoenas in terrorism investigations.

Syria in the Crosshairs?
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen held a forum last week entitled "The Syrian Threat," hosted by the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, which she chairs, to "address Syria's role in attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq; its continued support for terrorist organizations; its missile development; and its occupation of Lebanon." The forum featured none other than Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, Marc Ginsburg, former Ambassador to Morocco, and former Lebanese Prime Minister General Michel Aoun.

Read more

?if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.? Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race?as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a ?humorous tweak.? The two others said it was anything but. ?He went into detail about his grievances,? Holtzman said. ?Clark wasn?t joking. We were really shocked.?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1