*ANTI-WAR PARTY: In a March 13 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean predicted that Democratic primary voters, as the paper put it, "won't be so anxious to forgive" Democratic members of Congress who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, then turned around to say they opposed it. Dean exempted only the consistently hawkish Sen. Joe Leiberman from his criticism. "The others [are saying], well I didn't really want to [vote in favor], or I did it for a different reason," said Dean. "You can't get elected like that." The same day, in a speech to San Francisco's Commonwealth Club, Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) had a hard time answering questions about the war. "[M]y position is complicated," said Kerry, who then, according to the Chronicle, "tried to explain how he squared that vote with his continuing opposition to unilateral U.S. intervention in Iraq."
*UN OVER U.S.: Curiously, Dean himself conceded he would not oppose a war against Iraq in all circumstances. For him the determining factor would be whether the UN Security Council-i.e. the French, the Germans, the Russians, and the Chinese-wanted one. "It's the United Nations's job to deal with Iraq," said Dean. "The U.N. has every right to go in to disarm Saddam."
*KERRY HECKLED: At the California Democratic Party Convention in Sacramento, Dean continued his offensive against his party's chicken hawks. The hyper-liberal crowd of more than 1,750 delegates was ecstatic when Dean denounced flip floppers. "What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq," he said. "I don't think we can win the White House if we vote for the President's unilateral attack on Iraq and then come to California and say we're against the war." Kerry was heckled by the same crowd. "Why did you vote for a war?" cried one. "No war, John."
*EDWARDS BOOED: Kerry made out better than Sen. John Edwards (N.C.). Edwards, who voted for the war, was answered with boos and catcalls from the California Democrats when he said: "I believe Saddam Hussein is a serious threat. I believe he must be disarmed, including with the use of military force if necessary."
*TRICKY DICK: Rep. Dick Gephardt (D.-Mo.) is another Democratic presidential candidate who voted for the war resolution and then opposed the war. On March 16 in New Hampshire, according to the Manchester Union Leader, Gephardt said, "I am still hopeful for a diplomatic resolution and I have been talking to President Bush about going back to the United Nations-I do not believe that it is a good idea for us to go to war." Not so boldly and directly as Dean, Gephardt suggested deference to United Nations. "The best way to get this done without war is to have the UN agree with us and fight together," he said.
*DEMOCRATS' DEMISE?: Veteran Democratic operative Garry South, longtime campaign manager for Gov. Gray Davis, told reporters after the California convention: "[I]f this party becomes branded again among the electorate as being insufficiently concerned about national defense, it doesn't matter what we have to say about anything else. If we're viewed as the anti-war party. ..we're dead." An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted after President Bush delivered his ultimatum to Saddam on March 17 would seem to indicate that South's fear is well-founded. Seventy-two percent said they favored going to war against Iraq as soon as the ultimatum expired, and 72% said Bush had done enough to try to win the support of other countries.
*LIEBERMAN TAKES THE WAR MANTLE: As Democrats continued to bicker over the war question, even Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.) got into the act, blaming the President for forcing America to war through his incompetence (see page 3). "It's hurting the party," FOX News' Bill O'Reilly suggested of the Democrats' positioning on the Iraq question. His guest, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn), accepted the assessment. "I agree with you," he said. "Everybody's got to do what they think is right. But I want to say, as a proud Democrat, that our party will not fully regain the confidence of the American people. . .unless they trust us, the American people trust us to be tough on security questions when you've got to be tough. . .You come to moments where you can't negotiate your way to a safer America. You've got to use the force, the power, of the American military."
*A CYNICAL BET? If you assume that the Democratic politicians slashing at the President's Iraq policy right up to the brink of war were thinking of politics rather than the national interest, what was their line of thought? CBS News' Bob Schieffer laid it out on March 17: "The President has set some very high goals here and I think anyone would say this is the biggest gamble that any President has made certainly in my life time. If it goes as the administration says it is going to go, this will be over quickly. . . . If there are not very many casualties, this will be a remarkable feat. But those are a lot of ifs and if any of those things go wrong, if we become bogged down here, this President is going to-well I think it comes down to this: If he is able to win this and win it quickly from his standpoint, from a political standpoint he will be reelected probably almost unanimously. If it goes poorly I would guess he wouldn't even run for reelection. ... this is an enormous gamble"
*HUGE MONEY ADVANTAGE: According to the Associated Press, national Republican Party committees reported to the Federal Election Commission a 4-to-1 edge over their Democratic counterparts in contributions last month. The GOP took in $19.8 million to the Democrats' $4.96 million. The immense disparity demonstrates how badly Democrats injured themselves by supporting so-called campaign finance reform last year, since they tended to rely on large soft-money donations more than the Republicans did. "The National Republican Congressional Committee, which raises money for House Republicans," said AP, "took in $8.1 million, compared with $1.4 million for the House Democratic committee. The Senate Republicans' fund-raising committee collected $2 million, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $889,685. The Republican National Committee raised nearly $9.7 million, compared with $2.6 million for the Democratic National Committee." The Democratic committees also had a combined $13.4 million in debt, compared to only $5.7 million for the Republicans.
