Democrats are reprising that old high school basketball cheer:
Gore or Gephardt
He's our man!
If he can't do it!
. . . no . . . one . . . can.
As if Republicans haven't had enough good news lately, let me share with you a round-table conversation which took place at an Embassy in Washington the other day.
In attendance at lunch were Big Time Republicans (BTRs). And Big Time Democrats (BTDs). And Ambassadors. And other Embassy officials.
And me.
After the Republicans did a diplomatically correct version of the Ren-and-Stempy-dance-o'-joy, the question was asked: To whom will the Democrats turn?
Good thing Anthony Newly didn't have to adhere to the rules of grammar: To whom can I ter-URN? When destiny needs me?
The answer, with the appropriate amount of hedging was Gore. Or Gephardt.
Here's the thinking: Rank-and-file Democrats want Al Gore. They like Al Gore and, as we've discussed before, the folks who attend the county central committee meetings, get elected to state conventions, and ultimately elect a large percentage of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in BOSTON think Al Gore got screwed in 2000 - an opinion shared by none other than ... Al Gore.
And Tipper and Karenna and all the other little Gorinas.
Further, freed from the fear of the Clintons - who were ready to pounce at the first sign of real or imagined disloyalty - Gore can be his own man this time. Whatever that turns out to be.
In fact, if there is a purge at the Democratic National Committee over the next few months, it will be - in large part - to clear out the (as one of the BTDs put it) "Clintonistas" who have inhabited the place from January 2001 until this very minute including the Clintonista-in-Chief, Terry McAuliffe.
On the other hand, Dick Gephardt is the darling of the labor unions.
Union leaders might think Gore is a flake and mercurial. But they KNOW Gephardt is their guy. Notwithstanding that he just got fired from his job as the Democratic leader in the House, Gephardt understands the unions' issues, has fought for the unions' positions, and is poised to be the unions' candidate.
If there is one segment of the political population which understands that losing means you fight harder next time, it is labor union leadership. The fact that they have almost unlimited funds from mandatory union dues allows them to fight on and on and on.
Gephardt is a principal reason that President Clinton never received "fast track" trade authority. The unions were (and are) opposed to it, and Gephardt would not deliver Democratic votes in the House in spite of heavy lobbying by the Administration.
Labor unions turn out voters in primary elections. Those voters determine another large percentage of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in BOSTON.
So, the only two Democrats with anything resembling a "base" are Gore and Gephardt.
That's what the BTDs thought. What the BTRs thought was (a) that John Kerry of Massachusetts can write a big
check and is, by definition, a player; and (b) that John Edwards of North Carolina will run as far to the left as
necessary because he is not interested in running for re-election to the Senate from the Tar Heel state, thus leaving
Kerry as the de facto moderate in the race.
The BTDs looked thoughtful about the Kerry comment, but laughed openly at what was a just-this-side-of-brilliant insight into the Edwards strategy. I may - MAY - think it was a great thought because I had offered it.
While I hesitate to share this particular bit of strategic advice to my friends in the Democratic party, there is a way for the Democrats to win the Presidency in 2004.
� 
