Democrats See a Party Adrift as Presidential Loss Sinks In
By RICHARD L. BERKE
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 — Democrats didn't think it could get any worse than Florida. They were wrong.
Now they are even more distressed, discouraged and depressed than they were on that fateful day in December when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of George W. Bush.
Many prominent Democrats are furious at Bill Clinton, who they hoped would lead the Democrats out of the debris of the 2000 election, for how he left the White House. His pardon of Marc Rich, the fugitive commodities trader, and his departure with tens of thousands of dollars worth of household gifts from wealthy donors have even inflamed stalwart allies. (The Clintons later returned some gifts and agreed to reimburse the donors for others.)
"It's terrible, devastating, and it's rather appalling," William M. Daley, who was Mr. Clinton's commerce secretary before he became chairman of the Gore campaign, said of the former president. "Bush ran on bringing dignity back," Mr. Daley said, "and I think the actions by Clinton of the last couple of weeks are giving him a pretty good platform."
The despair among dozens of leading Democrats interviewed over the past 10 days extends well beyond the latest Clinton imbroglios. Many are angry at Al Gore for not winning the White House.
Even the top Democrat in the House, Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, sounded dismayed at the way Mr. Gore ran his campaign, saying it contributed to the party's failure to recapture the House last year — a source of great consternation among Congressional Democrats.
"In retrospect, if we had a little wind at the top of the ticket, it would have helped some of those close races," said Mr. Gephardt, who steadfastly backed Mr. Gore in the campaign.
"I'm not blaming it on the Gore campaign, but that is a fact of life," Mr. Gephardt said. He cited Congressional races in which "our candidate lost by a little but ran ahead of Gore — just needed a little wind and didn't get it."
Democrats said they felt all the more leaderless because of the lingering strains between Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton, which have been heightened by the controversies over gifts and pardons.
"We haven't emerged with a strong, singular voice, but that's coming," Michael D. McCurry, a former Clinton press secretary, said.
"I get asked by audiences, `Why didn't the Gore campaign use Clinton more?' " Mr. McCurry said. "And you hear the flip side: `Why didn't Clinton go under the radar?' "
Explaining the intensified disenchantment, he said: "Because of the long count, there was this self-delusional sense that maybe we were still around. Now that Bush has taken office and settled in, you see the reality of the shift of power — and the self-flagellation."
Representative Mark Udall of Colorado said of the tensions between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore: "If you can't resolve them, and those feelings are intensified because people don't let them die away, that's not healthy. They're both strong-willed men, but they care deeply about the party."
Democrats are also stewing over the fact that, despite all the promises, their party did not win back the House.
"Nobody's blaming anybody," Representative Louise M. Slaughter of New York said, "but we want to know why. People just want to know what happened."
The election last year, Representative Slaughter said, "was our best shot" at taking back the House. "We had all that money, and extraordinarily good candidates."
Democrats are also frustrated because they no longer have the platform of the White House from which to press their agenda.
"We are only beginning to fully appreciate the magnitude of the loss in terms of our ability to articulate a message throughout the country," said Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader. "It is the biggest megaphone there is, and President Clinton used it very ably.
"Not having the Oval Office. Not having the Rose Garden. Not having the O.M.B. Not having Cabinet officials. They are all considerable losses," Senator Daschle, of South Dakota, said. "We're trying to do the best we can."
Democrats are bitter that the man they do not think belongs in the White House, President Bush, has had an unusually smooth debut. They worry that the party has not figured out how to position itself against him, and they fear that partywide ennui will cause contributors to sit on their wallets.
"People in the fund-raising community who are ideologically driven are very disappointed," said Carter Eskew, Mr. Gore's chief strategist last year. "They think the Democrats have essentially rolled over and are letting Bush have his way. They don't believe Democrats have a real strategy for taking the guy on."
Such concerns surfaced in dozens of interviews. Democrats around the country said the loss of the White House was finally sinking in and that the adjustment had been harder — and more dispiriting — than they had expected. At every level, they said, they were adrift. And many said they were at a loss to figure how to recover.
Yet for all their worries, many Democrats argued that the politicians and the public were adjusting to the post-election world and that it was far too early for Democrats to panic. There is plenty of time, many said, for Republicans to stumble — and for Democrats to right themselves.
Many Democrats on Capitol Hill pointed to the unusually close relationship between Mr. Daschle and Mr. Gephardt as a vital asset that would help the party define itself.
Terry McAuliffe, the new national party chairman, gave a pep talk to Senate Democrats today and said later in an interview that he believed the party could "use the energy out of Florida in a positive way to keep our base energized."
And, Mr. McAuliffe said, if the past was any indication, the glum talk would eventually dissipate.
"In 1995, Newt Gingrich and his buddies came in, and everybody said that the Democratic Party was dead," he said. "We came back and won seats in '96. We won seats in '98. And we won seats — as well as the presidency — in 2000," Mr. McAuliffe said, refusing to concede that Mr. Gore lost.
Some Democrats suggested that Mr. McAuliffe himself was part of the problem. They said that one reason Mr. Clinton and his woes were not about to fade was that Mr. McAuliffe was Mr. Clinton's hand-picked choice to head the Democratic Party. Mr. McAuliffe himself might well become embroiled in the investigation of the Rich pardon because of his role as fund-raiser for the Clinton Library. Mr. Rich's former wife, Denise, pledged $450,000 to the library and federal prosecutors have opened a preliminary investigation into whether her contributions affected Mr. Clinton's decision to pardon Mr. Rich. Mr. Clinton has denied any wrongdoing.
In the interview today, Mr. McAuliffe declined to discuss Mr. Clinton, whom he has called his best friend.
"I'm talking about the future," Mr. McAuliffe said.
Norman Brownstein, a longtime Democratic fund-raiser in Denver, said there was a perception that Mr. McAuliffe's service as chairman "complicated" things for the party. "But," Mr. Brownstein said, "I'm not sure that's the case. Once this dies down, Terry's probably going to be very, very capable."
Mr. Brownstein seemed more worried about Mr. Clinton, saying, "Any time there's controversy like this it's going to adversely affect somebody's ability to help with fund-raising."
But some Democrats even argued that the fallout from Mr. Clinton's messy exit could be the party's best hope. They said Republicans would so overplay their investigations that it would trigger a backlash and energize rank-and-file Democrats.
Others were not so hopeful, or forgiving. Paul Goldman, a former chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party, called on Congressional Democrats today to censure Mr. Clinton for pardoning Mr. Rich.
While the harsh publicity could cool demand for Mr. Clinton on the lecture circuit and did mar Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's debut as a Democratic star on Capitol Hill, some Democrats argued that the controversy made the former president an even more compelling figure.
"If they're doing a fund-raiser and the guest of honor is some senator or the guest of honor is Bill Clinton, I've got to believe you want to hear Bill Clinton," said Alan J. Blinken, a longtime party fund-raiser. "The guy is just fascinating and interesting to hear. There's a lot of show biz in the process, obviously."
Many lawmakers were less concerned about Mr. Clinton's capacity to raise money than about the prospect that the Republicans' control of Congress would give the party a colossal financial advantage.
"This is a very difficult time for Democrats," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who was first elected in 1974. "We felt we won the election, yet our candidate wasn't allowed to become president. We had hoped to take back the House, and we find ourselves still in the minority. And special-interest money will be attracted to the Republican side in greater magnitude than ever before because they're in power."
Representative Udall said fears about the Republicans' financial advantage were "part of what underlies the anger right now" among House Democrats.
Mr. Gephardt sounded less distressed than many Democrats in his caucus.
"I don't fully share the view that the party is on its back and suffered a horrible defeat," he said. "I'm not saying we had an exhilarating victory. But in essence the election was a tie. And if the economy keeps going, I think we deserve some credit for putting it in the right place. If it doesn't, I think Bush will bear the brunt of the burden."
Yet for all the hand-wringing over Mr. Clinton, some Democrats still seem more bitter about Mr. Gore.
"Look," Mr. Waxman said, "I believe that in this last election if Clinton had been our nominee, we would have won."
nytimes.com |
