War issue presents challenge for Dem candidates
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
Most Americans support invading Iraq, but 45% of the Democratic Party does not. That presents the six Democratic presidential hopefuls with a complex political challenge: reconciling their views with the will of a popular president and figuring out how to win the nomination in a process dominated by liberals and then appeal to enough moderates to win the election.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., meets reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday, offering a resolution and thanking America's supporters in Europe.
By Terry Ashe, AP
The candidate spectrum ranges from the hawkish Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., to anti-war civil rights activist Al Sharpton. "Everybody else is in the mushy middle," says Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. "Mush may be a very valid position right now." (Related item: Where the presidential hopefuls stand)
That's because it's the position many Americans hold. Nearly two-thirds in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll this month say they favor invading Iraq with ground troops. But only 36% say they consider Iraq an immediate threat, and only 39% say they favor invading without U.N. approval.
Soundings in key primary-season states suggest anti-war sentiment will be more of a factor in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two contests, than in states that follow. Iowa Democrats kick off the nominating season at caucuses Jan. 19. "Those who want to be the presidential nominee need to know that a substantial majority of caucus attenders are opposed to the war," says Dave Nagle of Cedar Rapids, a former congressman and former chairman of the state Democratic Party.
Nagle says Democrats are waiting for a strong anti-war candidate to enter the race, someone like Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida or former senator Gary Hart of Colorado. If the field stays the same, Nagle says, "it would be hard" to support anyone.
The New Hampshire primary is Jan. 27. A Concord Monitor Poll in December found that 77% of state Republicans and 43% of Democrats support the use of military force in Iraq. Colin Van Ostern, spokesman for the state Democratic Party, says the anti-war feeling is seen in what people talk about at house parties for candidates and what they nod at listening to speeches. "It's one of the things that's invigorating activists right now," he says.
South Carolina follows New Hampshire with a primary Feb. 3. Democrats there are concerned about "the validity of going alone" and what they see as lack of evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or links to terrorists, Harpootlian says. The state's many military installations contribute to concern: "When you mobilize for war, it's our brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers heading off." But Harpootlian says South Carolina has a well-earned hawkish profile. "There's no such thing as a liberal in South Carolina," he says. "You don't hear significant anti-war rhetoric from anyone."
There was plenty of it last week at an "anti-war room" in Washington set up by Win Without War, a coalition of 25 religious, environmental and other groups. About 20 people huddled at laptops, tapping intently as Secretary of State Colin Powell made the case against Iraq at the United Nations.
In the late 1990s, with centrist Democrats pushing for tough defense and foreign policies, the Democratic Party tempered its anti-war image and neutralized the advantage voters gave Republicans on national security. But recent polls show Democrats behind Republicans in handling terrorism, foreign affairs and Iraq.
Former Maine congressman Tom Andrews of Win Without War says Democrats running for president should stick to principle. "If you're willing to speak clearly and directly about what you believe is in the best interests of the United States, and if you speak to the highest and best of our values, you will win elections," he says.
But it's not that simple. Lieberman has probably the clearest position on Iraq, and it's anathema to anti-war Democrats. Entertainment-industry liberals say his war views disturb them even more than his crusade against media sex and violence. On the East Coast, Gadiel Smith, 90, of West Caldwell, N.J., says if Lieberman is the 2004 nominee, "I'm going to stay home and sulk" on Election Day.
Candidates with layered views risk alienating hawks and doves alike. In a Georgetown University speech, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry said Democrats must convince Americans that "we will keep them safe," and must not let the party's national security agenda "be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere."
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, helped found Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He said he respects war protesters: "I've been there. I know how tough it is." He also defended voting last year for a resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq. "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me," he said.
Al From of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council says that kind of talk is what the party needs to earn credibility with wary voters. When people choose a president, he says, "the highest value they have is toughness. They want strength."
From, whose group has worked with Bill Clinton, Al Gore and other prominent Democrats, says presidential hopefuls should not worry about skeptical primary voters. If a war starts, he says, most Democrats will support it â and candidates who backed it will be able to neutralize doubts about Democrats and defense just as Clinton and Gore did in 1992 after the last Persian Gulf War. "We did not run anti-war candidates in 1992," From says. "Had we done that, we would have lost."
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
Most Americans support invading Iraq, but 45% of the Democratic Party does not. That presents the six Democratic presidential hopefuls with a complex political challenge: reconciling their views with the will of a popular president and figuring out how to win the nomination in a process dominated by liberals and then appeal to enough moderates to win the election.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., meets reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday, offering a resolution and thanking America's supporters in Europe.
By Terry Ashe, AP
The candidate spectrum ranges from the hawkish Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., to anti-war civil rights activist Al Sharpton. "Everybody else is in the mushy middle," says Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. "Mush may be a very valid position right now." (Related item: Where the presidential hopefuls stand)
That's because it's the position many Americans hold. Nearly two-thirds in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll this month say they favor invading Iraq with ground troops. But only 36% say they consider Iraq an immediate threat, and only 39% say they favor invading without U.N. approval.
Soundings in key primary-season states suggest anti-war sentiment will be more of a factor in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two contests, than in states that follow. Iowa Democrats kick off the nominating season at caucuses Jan. 19. "Those who want to be the presidential nominee need to know that a substantial majority of caucus attenders are opposed to the war," says Dave Nagle of Cedar Rapids, a former congressman and former chairman of the state Democratic Party.
Nagle says Democrats are waiting for a strong anti-war candidate to enter the race, someone like Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida or former senator Gary Hart of Colorado. If the field stays the same, Nagle says, "it would be hard" to support anyone.
The New Hampshire primary is Jan. 27. A Concord Monitor Poll in December found that 77% of state Republicans and 43% of Democrats support the use of military force in Iraq. Colin Van Ostern, spokesman for the state Democratic Party, says the anti-war feeling is seen in what people talk about at house parties for candidates and what they nod at listening to speeches. "It's one of the things that's invigorating activists right now," he says.
South Carolina follows New Hampshire with a primary Feb. 3. Democrats there are concerned about "the validity of going alone" and what they see as lack of evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or links to terrorists, Harpootlian says. The state's many military installations contribute to concern: "When you mobilize for war, it's our brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers heading off." But Harpootlian says South Carolina has a well-earned hawkish profile. "There's no such thing as a liberal in South Carolina," he says. "You don't hear significant anti-war rhetoric from anyone."
There was plenty of it last week at an "anti-war room" in Washington set up by Win Without War, a coalition of 25 religious, environmental and other groups. About 20 people huddled at laptops, tapping intently as Secretary of State Colin Powell made the case against Iraq at the United Nations.
In the late 1990s, with centrist Democrats pushing for tough defense and foreign policies, the Democratic Party tempered its anti-war image and neutralized the advantage voters gave Republicans on national security. But recent polls show Democrats behind Republicans in handling terrorism, foreign affairs and Iraq.
Former Maine congressman Tom Andrews of Win Without War says Democrats running for president should stick to principle. "If you're willing to speak clearly and directly about what you believe is in the best interests of the United States, and if you speak to the highest and best of our values, you will win elections," he says.
But it's not that simple. Lieberman has probably the clearest position on Iraq, and it's anathema to anti-war Democrats. Entertainment-industry liberals say his war views disturb them even more than his crusade against media sex and violence. On the East Coast, Gadiel Smith, 90, of West Caldwell, N.J., says if Lieberman is the 2004 nominee, "I'm going to stay home and sulk" on Election Day.
Candidates with layered views risk alienating hawks and doves alike. In a Georgetown University speech, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry said Democrats must convince Americans that "we will keep them safe," and must not let the party's national security agenda "be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere."
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, helped found Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He said he respects war protesters: "I've been there. I know how tough it is." He also defended voting last year for a resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq. "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me," he said.
Al From of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council says that kind of talk is what the party needs to earn credibility with wary voters. When people choose a president, he says, "the highest value they have is toughness. They want strength."
From, whose group has worked with Bill Clinton, Al Gore and other prominent Democrats, says presidential hopefuls should not worry about skeptical primary voters. If a war starts, he says, most Democrats will support it â and candidates who backed it will be able to neutralize doubts about Democrats and defense just as Clinton and Gore did in 1992 after the last Persian Gulf War. "We did not run anti-war candidates in 1992," From says. "Had we done that, we would have lost."
Upvote
0
