Democrats who suck: Looking back at '04

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Jon Chait looks back at the 2004 Democratic presidential field and, well, finds it wanting:

Just how awful was the 2004 Democratic primary field? Go through the list, and try to imagine any of these men as a presidential nominee, let alone (shudder) a president:

Howard Dean, who's been spending the last year on and off trying to kill health care reform.

Dick Gephardt, who's now a corporate whore.

John Edwards, who's, well, John Edwards.

Wes Clark, last seen insisting that "New York money people" were pushing for war with Iran.

Dennis Kucinich, also trying to kill health care reform.

Joe Lieberman: [photo of Lieberman at McCain rally -- enough said]

and, of course, Al Sharpton.

At the time, I was disappointed that Kerry prevailed. And it's certainly true that Kerry lacked the communications skills to be a presidential nominee. But compared to that field, he was a giant. He's the only candidate you can imagine actually serving as president without bringing about some enormous disaster. And he's handled himself pretty well since losing the race. Indeed, the only other 2004 candidate who's actually raised his stature among Democrats is Sharpton.

Dean was the exciting candidate, and many in the base supported him, but I hesitantly backed Kerry and was anything but disappointed when he won. I came to admire him a great deal during the campaign, and I admire him still. (I later came to support Edwards, before turning to Obama early in the '08 primaries.) And certainly, when you think back to that bunch, he seems all the more impressive.

Let's not be too revisionist, though. At the time, Gephardt and Lieberman were respected figures in the party, Clark (a distinguished military man) and Edwards (a Southerner with a vote-winning populist pedigree) were rising stars, Dean was, in a way, Obama before Obama, and Kucinich, who never had a chance, was widely regarded, as he is still, as the leftist conscience of the party. Only Sharpton was a joke, or worse.

It's an embarrassing roster of candidates when you look back on it now, but was it so bad back then? Sure, you think the Democrats could have fielded stronger candidates (Kerry aside) given Bush's vulnerability, but the strength of the '08 field more than makes up for the weakness of the '04 one. The fact is, the Democrats were in rudderless disarray back then with the Clinton-Gore years behind them and with Bush skating along with 9/11 still fresh in everyone's mind and the Iraq War not yet the utter disaster it would soon become.

There is still some disarray, of course, but, at the presidential level, with candidates who could compete one day for the White House, they're in a much better position now than they were then. Or so I think. It's rather hard to tell, with a Democrat in the White House and with no one in the party seriously challenging him, but I just don't see the same vacuum of leadership, and forward-looking leadership potential, that I saw in '04 and that is so much starker now in retrospect.

Besides, take a look at the possible GOP field in 2012 if you want to see mediocrity, and worse: Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Paul, Pawlenty, Jindal, Santorum, Pence, Thune...

Now there's "some enormous disaster" waiting to happen.