CALLIE SHELL/AURORA FOR TIME THE VETERAN: Al Gore, with locals in Dubuque, Iowa, may be his party's best bet in 2004

Looking Ahead to 2004
	Demoralized dems are licking their wounds, seeking a message—and jockeying for position
	By Josh Tyrangiel

Posted Sunday, Nov 10, 2002; 10:31 a.m. EST
Punch-drunk. Terry Mcauliffe must have been punch-drunk. After seeing a Republican President gain congressional seats in a midterm election for the first time since 1902, the Democratic National Committee chairman offered a woozy bit of spin: "I could make the argument that George Bush should have done a lot better last night." McAuliffe was not the only one finessing the results. "This country is still in the upheaval of 9/11," said dethroned Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. "The war in Iraq, the North Korean situation—all of that probably precluded us from having the opportunity to break through with the issues we wanted to talk about the most."

It's true that control of the Senate came down to a swing of just 41,000 votes in Missouri and New Hampshire. It's also true that those votes swung Republican, and in the minds of voters, the problem wasn't that the Democratic message was obscured but that the Democrats obscured it. After examining a postelection poll of his members, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney said they felt "neither party has a plan to strengthen the economy." But he added that "this is a particularly strong indictment of the Democrats. They needed to be crystal clear about what they stand for on issues of importance to workers—jobs, the economy, health care."

The message problem is endemic to Democrats. The party boasts a big tent, but that tent doubles as a big boxing ring, and in the weeks before the election every genus of Democrat—from the Southern pro-gun, antiabortion members of Congress to the Northern pro-choice, gun-control liberals in the Senate—duked it out over how to counter the President's agenda. Liberals argued it was time to get tougher with Bush on Iraq and the economy; moderates, many of whom backed Bush's war resolution and tax-cut proposal, argued it was time to get tougher on liberals. In the end the Democrats never got close to formulating a unified message. They simply failed to take their fight outside the tent.

The presumptive election this week of liberal San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi to the House minority-leader post vacated by Dick Gephardt indicates that for now the party will lean left. But for some, ideology is less important than unity. "Democrats have to go forward with a sharp message," Massachusetts Senator John Kerry told Time. "It's not a question of moving left or right. People want you to look them in the eye and tell them what you're for."

Which brings us back to the beginning. What are Democrats—all Democrats—actually for in 2002? Though some party leaders realized that campaigning on the economy got them nowhere—"No one has really felt the pain of the Bush economic policies yet," says Democratic Senate whip Harry Reid—many believe it's time to go after Bush's tax cut. "The economy is in shambles because of that tax cut," says Pennsylvania Governor-elect and former D.N.C. chair Ed Rendell. "We can translate that into things people understand: 'You're not going to get money you need for social services to make your life better. Why? Because they gave all the money away in a tax cut.' Find everything that people are concerned about, everything that they need from government in their lives, and attach it to tax cuts."

Party unity is aborning on health care. Since getting burned by the failed Clinton health-care plan in 1994, Democrats have focused on the micro-issue of prescription drugs for the elderly, which are not covered by Medicare outside of hospital stays. But in 2002 the G.O.P. countered with ads touting its own prescription plan; the two plans were so elaborate and confusing that even politicians had a tough time telling them apart. Conclusion? Broaden the message. "Look at the Democratic gubernatorial candidates who won," says Rahm Emanuel, a former top Clinton adviser elected to the House seat once held by Dan Rostenkowski. "They were all forward-looking, competent, pro-growth candidates, but they ran on health care and made it the center of the debate. Not prescription drugs but health care."

1 | 2 | Next >>

Get the Magazine — Try 4 Issues Free!

Inside Story of America's Closest Election  Barnes & Noble: $21.85

	NATION Election 2002: Winners and Losers Sure, you kept track of the races. But do you know who scored—and who stumbled—behind the scenes on election night? WORLD How Close Are We to War? A guide to the schedule agreed by the UN PHOTO ESSAY Girl Culture A new book by photographer Lauren Greenfield reveals the dreams and insecurities of American girls ARTS Eminem's 8 Mile High Yes, he can act. In a powerful new film, the rapper brings his signature intensity to the big screen