2004 Democratic Presidential Candidates
As a conservative/libertarian voter at this time in our nation's history, my primary issue in the 2004 Presidential race is the same as my primary issue during the Cold War: Which candidate will defend the country? It overrides other issues important to me such as: 2nd Amendment rights; economic policy; foreign policy.
Here are my opinions on the major Democratic candidates running as of late November 2003. (Their titles are those listed at the Democratic National Committee's web site.)
Reverend Al Sharpton
A loudmouth who needs little introduction, "Reverend Al"
gives African-American leadership a bad name. He's running
because the Democratic Party takes the African-American
vote for granted, and his campaign is meant to warn party
leadership that African-Americans have little to show
recently for their nearly monolithic support of Democrats.
He's right, actually. Even Rush Limbaugh gave him props
early in the campaign for pointing out lack of results -
heck, lack of respect.
Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun
She's in the race to blunt Sharpton's potential effect in
the presidential race (she's also African-American). Apart
from some feminist groups, she has little support.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich
He's a hardcore liberal - people who attend his speeches
and rallies come away thinking - no, believing -
he's got the right ideals and ideas, much like Alan Keyes
for conservative views in the 2000 Republican presidential
race. But even Democrats think he's too far left-wing to be
taken seriously as a presidential candidate.
Senator John Edwards
I think he's doing this now just for the future name
recognition. He doesn't have enough experience yet. He
probably sees himself trying to do what Clinton did in the
1992 race: enter the race as an unknown when President Bush
has 90% approval ratings and sticking it out all the way to
victory. Not gonna happen, not in 2004 anyway.
Senator John Kerry
He's a Vietnam War veteran - heck, he's a war hero. Anyone
who's fought for our nation's freedom has earned a second
look. I've tried, but I can't get past the idea that like
most of the candidates his positions are determined by
polls and Howard Dean's front-runner status. He supports
the war in Iraq, and he opposes it. With waffling like
that, I don't think he can be trusted with national
defense. Either come down on one side or the other but be
consistent; waffling only makes us look weak and
vulnerable, and ultimately encourages our enemies to
attack.
Senator Joe Lieberman
He's the only Democratic candidate who has steadfastly
supported the war in Iraq. He bills himself as a
conservative, and maybe on some issues he is, but I
consider him a moderate. Still, if a Democrat were to win
the 2004 race I would hope it would be Lieberman.
General Wesley Clark
The Clinton/Democratic Leadership Council candidate; the
anti-Dean. He was a reluctant candidate, entering the race
only after an unprecedented grass-roots campaign to draft
him into the race. On paper he should be a very strong
candidate, able to out-campaign, out-think, out-debate
Bush. In reality he's alienated his grass-roots supporters,
out-waffled Kerry, and been outed as a former
Republican-type. There's still time for his campaign to get
sharper, but for now instead of being the best chance to
beat Dean, Clark just looks like any other candidate.
Congressman Dick Gephardt
He's still considered the candidate for labor, even though
Dean's received some important labor endorsements.
Surprisingly strong in Iowa, he can give Dean a strong
early run. But I still remember a speech he gave when he
was running in the 1988 race, asking a crowd (of presumably
American auto workers) if they thought Koreans
could build better cars than them. The way he said it -
gave me pause back then. The Democratic Party is the party
for minorities? Bullshit. Sharpton has a
point.
Governor Howard Dean
The front-runner. The one to beat. I first heard him
interviewed on Meet the Press a year before he
started his campaign, and although I thought I wouldn't
vote for him, I thought he sounded great and if he were to
beat Bush I wouldn't mind too much. He actually supports
2nd Amendment rights, arguing that the Democratic Party
cannot afford to continue to support gun control; Dean's
got an A rating from the NRA! He opposed the war in Iraq,
but he's been consistent. As a governor he has executive
branch experience, he knows what it's like to make
decisions on the government budget, being forced to make
unpopular decisions for the greater good. If the country
were not at war he'd be my favorite Democratic candidate. I
still respect his candidacy and, unlike the Republican
party leadership, think he may be the strongest candidate
against Bush.
But make no mistake: the country is at war. Which candidates will defend the country? Bush does and will continue to do so. Lieberman probably would also.