Earlier this month, when Al Gore announced he was reentering the national political debate, his press aides rushed to whatever microphone was offered to insist that it was “premature” to talk about the 2004 presidential race.
Perhaps. But that doesn’t mean that it’s too early for talk about the 2008 Democratic primaries. That’s right, the 2008 primaries.
This is the absurd reality of presidential politics. Few politicians just wake up two years before a presidential election and decide to test the waters. No, the presidential race promotes long-term daydreaming for the better part of a lifetime. Nixon was thinking about it during the Alger Hiss trials. Reagan had it in the back of his mind when he was stumping for Barry Goldwater. Al Gore was probably eyeing the Oval Office when he was scribbling for The Tennessean.
What this means is that 2008 contenders are already on the field. They are today’s senators, governors, office seekers and cabinet members, each of them plotting, networking and jockeying for national attention.
That is what makes Phil Bredesen’s quest for governor so ripe with national implications. He would deny it, of course, but somewhere, not-too-far in the recesses of his ambitious mind, a presidential run is in the cards.
He’s not delusional. Should he win in Tennessee this fall, Bredesen will instantly jump onto the short list of Democratic contenders for 2008. That says something about the former Nashville mayor, but perhaps even more about the parlous state of the national Democratic Party.
Since Bill Clinton ignominiously left the stage last year, the party has struggled to find an identity and a new leader. Bush’s popularity since Sept. 11 has made the task of generating enthusiasm for his Democratic opponents even harder.
Normally when a party loses the White House, its faithful step in behind their leader in the Senate, much as Republicans did with Bob Dole during the Clinton years. But Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle has proven to be an adept parliamentarian and a dismal national leader. A New York Times poll earlier this month found that his “unfavorable” rating had doubled since last June.
Where else can the Democrats look for inspiration? Richard Gephardt, the House minority leader, has been mentioned as a possible presidential nominee for the last 14 years. Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards are the favorite Democratic Ken dolls who plan to go for broke and displace Gore in 2004. Neither can point to a single important accomplishment in the Senate.
After that, the bench strength gets even weaker. The Democrats now hold just 21 of the nation’s gubernatorial seats. That includes Alaska, Hawaii, Delaware, Iowa and West Virginia—not exactly springboards to national prominence. In more significant capitals, Democrats have failed to exhibit much political muscle. In Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri and North Carolina, for example, Democratic governors all have the advantage of Democratic-controlled legislatures. But not one of them could help carry the state for Al Gore in 2000. California’s Gray Davis, once thought to be the natural heir to Gore, has probably been permanently tarnished by his mismanagement of the state’s energy crisis.
For their part, the “New Democrats,” that wonkish group of centrists who championed welfare reform and volunteer service, haven’t been able to maintain a grip on the party. In the early 1990s, they had a winning formula for a party eager to get out of the shadow of Jesse Jackson, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.
But now the congressional wing of the party is back marching to a familiar beat. Since the Enron scandal, war-horse Henry Waxman, and freshman New Jersey Sen. Jon Corzine, both unreconstructed liberals, have made the most news. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, far outpolls Joe Lieberman in surveys about future presidential nominees.
That’s where Bredesen comes in. The Democratic Party doesn’t have a prominent, moderate leader at the state level who can raise money and win votes. If Bredesen can win in November, he will be one of the few who can claim to do both. Because it is traditionally a bellwether state, and because Al Gore is determined that his party doesn’t lose Tennessee again, November’s race will give Bredesen much ink from the national punditocracy.
What they will say is that a Bredesen victory would invariably depend on crossover Republican voters—something Al Gore couldn’t attract in any state. That’s why the country was so sharply divided in red and blue swatches after the 2000 vote. If Bredesen breaks that pattern, he will quickly be hailed as a new model for Democratic politics.
That helps explain why, so far, he’s running such a conservative and cautious campaign. Traveling around the state, he tells audiences that he is pro-gun, anti-tax and pro-growth. He studiously avoids making an issue about abortion or teachers’ unions. The word “Democrat” does not appear on his Web site.
Needless to say, Bredesen could lose in November. He could flop as a governor. Or a dozen other scenarios could make him irrelevant.
But if he wants to be president—as every gubernatorial candidate does—then we should watch closely this fall for what might be a dress rehearsal for 2008.
Comments (0)