Democrats Ponder Whether the Time Has Come to Fire on Their Rivals
nytimes.com
July 9, 2003
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
PORTSMOUTH, N.H., July 7 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut came to the New Hampshire seacoast this morning armed with a speech that included what sounded like sharp criticism of his Democratic opponents. But the line was struck from his written remarks, and the attack went undelivered.
Mr. Lieberman's uncertainty about how much to tangle with his opponents is hardly unusual in the Democratic presidential contest.
The early start and fast pace of the campaign has pressured all the candidates to get tougher and move more quickly than ever before, their aides said, defying the conventional practice of delaying criticism of other candidates for as long as possible. This is a result both of the crowded field and the unexpected dominance of a candidate none had taken seriously, former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, one target of Mr. Lieberman's undelivered shots.
This unsettled environment has dizzied the campaigns as they debate what to do and when to do it — essentially, a game of political chicken in which candidates wait for someone else to take the first shot. The result has been what could kindly be described as confused behavior by the candidates and their advisers.
Here in New Hampshire, Mr. Lieberman's most prominent state adviser, Richard N. Swett, a former congressman and ambassador to Denmark, tartly said his candidate had to start taking on his opponents if he wanted to get traction.
"There are nine candidates from which people need to choose, and I think it's going to be much more difficult for them to make those choices unless the distinctions are fairly and clearly defined," Mr. Swett said. "The candidates themselves have to be clearly distinguishing themselves from the pack. It's never too early."
Mr. Swett, reflecting the common wisdom among the campaigns, suggested that Dr. Dean was the candidate Mr. Lieberman should be pivoting off of to build up his own credentials.
"What I find interesting is that if you look at his record as governor, he was far more moderate and centrist in his approach," Mr. Swett said of Dr. Dean. "He seems to be swinging to the left for the sake of the primary. My feeling is if he's going to paint himself into that corner, it's going be difficult for him to emerge when we get to the general election."
Mr. Lieberman, though, did not seem to be quite with Mr. Swett's program. He turned up to talk about jobs at a cafe here this morning and set down on the table written remarks that warned Democrats against retreating to an "old, failed solution of big government programs for everything, or appearing weak on defense during times of world threat" in the election ahead.
It was the kind of statement that almost certainly would have won Mr. Lieberman a moment on the local television news. But someone had drawn a dark slash through the paragraph, and the words went unspoken.
Mr. Lieberman hardly seems alone in his uncertainty. At a meeting with voters in Concord this evening, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina attacked Mr. Bush with a bluntness that appeared to startle even some Democrats. "The truth is, he's a phony — he's a complete phony," Mr. Edwards said of the president.
But Mr. Edwards turned nice when pressed about his fellow Democrats. "I don't have a negative word to say about any of them," he said.
Mr. Edwards took that position tonight, but showed no such reluctance at a televised debate in South Carolina in May — a debate that was so contentious that the candidates, almost by consensus, sharply scaled back attacks that they feared would weaken whoever won the party's nomination. And Mr. Edwards's campaign, like others, has not been shy about distributing research to reporters noting inconsistencies in the records of his opponents.
Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, for example, released a scorching attack on Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts for making "false claims" about Mr. Gephardt's health care plan in a televised interview. But Mr. Gephardt sent it out about 5 p.m. on July 3, just ahead of a three-day weekend.
While the candidates are all wary of being perceived as going on the attack too early, the temptation for taking on one's opponents, and doing it relatively soon, is as strong this year as ever, strategists for several candidates said.
The Democrats must not only compete for attention in a field of nine candidates, but also against the impression that they are fighting for a nomination that may not be worth having, given Mr. Bush's currently strong standing.
Mr. Lieberman's forum drew only one camera crew — which arrived late — and that was the rule, not the exception, during a weekend of campaigning by Democrats here.
Beyond that, there is Dr. Dean, whose early success is posing a real threat to several other candidates. Arguably, at least four of them — Messrs. Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards and Kerry — would have an incentive to take him down a few pegs, before long.
As it is, among the many political rules Dr. Dean might have upended this year is the one about attacking: At least initially, he criticized his opponents without reservation for much of the year. An aide to one of the candidates who might attack Dr. Dean was quick to note this.
"Dean's been the only candidate so far who has been comfortable with engaging on a personal level," this aide said.
That, though was back in the days when Dr. Dean was the maverick. This weekend, even he seemed to be trying to restrain himself — though he was not entirely successful.
"Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, they all voted for the war, they all voted for tax cuts," he said at one stop on Saturday.
Dr. Dean beamed as his audience applauded its approval. |
