Will Rogers famously claimed that he didn't belong to any organized political party: He was a Democrat. Yet Democrats have been uncommonly organized and pragmatic in recent months as they have gone about the business of choosing a presidential nominee. For that, they can thank George W. Bush, whose divisive, confrontational presidency has done more to unify their party than any Democrat ever could.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry wasn't the trendiest or most charismatic Democrat seeking his party's nomination. In almost any other election cycle, his early stumbles would have cost him the nomination months ago. But Kerry has shown the substance to withstand extended scrutiny from party leaders and rank-and-file voters intent on identifying the candidate best able to take on President Bush in what promises to be a withering campaign this fall.
As usual, Florida voters have been effectively shut out of the nomination process. Small, unrepresentative states such as Iowa and New Hampshire once again had outsized influence, thanks to their early primaries and caucuses. The one-on-one campaigning in those states did have the salutary effect of giving candidates such as Kerry and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards time and space to gauge voters' concerns and hone their messages accordingly.
Florida Democrats who go to the trouble of voting in the March 9 presidential primary will be doing little more than ratifying a choice that already has been made. Kerry will be the Democratic nominee, thanks to a string of victories culminating in this week's Super Tuesday success. We believe Kerry was the best choice available to Democrats, and we recommend him to those Floridians who wish to add their votes to the process next Tuesday.
It is no accident that Kerry is still standing, long after several other seemingly strong candidates were cast aside. Most Democrats have come to appreciate Kerry's pertinent attributes: his physical and moral courage during the Vietnam War; his generally thoughtful views on issues such as economic growth, social justice and national security; his evident intellect and maturity; a long and productive public career untainted by scandal.
Those qualities are especially reassuring to an electorate focused on issues of security: military and economic, national and personal. In a different political context, another candidate in the original Democratic field might have advanced. Floridians know Bob Graham as a solid U.S. senator and one of our state's ablest and most enlightened former governors. Voters nationally have come to respect Graham for his expertise and judgment on issues of national security. Yet his presidential campaign fizzled from the start. Richard Gephardt and Joseph Lieberman are almost universally liked and respected among members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, but they, too, failed to connect with voters. Two months ago, Howard Dean's mercurial campaign seemed poised to sweep to the nomination on the momentum of broad Democratic anger over Iraq and the economy, but Dean did not handle adversity nearly as well as Kerry did. Edwards came the farthest the fastest, winning support by forging an emotional connection to his party's populist roots. But Edwards ultimately was judged to be a little too inexperienced, too glib, too vulnerable to the assaults soon to come from the $150-million Bush media campaign.
In the end, Kerry showed the qualities necessary to win a nomination process that is half-sprint, half-marathon. Success in the general election, which is still eight long months away, will require an even higher form of staying power. Core Democrats are solidly behind Kerry because they came to the practical conclusion that he represents their best hope for victory in November, but Kerry also will have to attract his share of independents and moderate Republicans. So far, he hasn't shown that broader appeal. He should beg Edwards for a quick tutorial aimed at improving on his stentorian voice and circumlocutory style. To attract moderate voters, Kerry also will have to show that he, like Bill Clinton, is occasionally willing to break away from Democratic orthodoxy on issues such as education and the economy.
Still, even a candidate whose style is as cool as Kerry's will be able to ride the momentum of hot Democratic anger aimed at President Bush. In 2000, Bush ran for president as a moderate consensus-builder, and he won a close, disputed election that seemed to dictate a bipartisan approach to governing. Yet even before the Sept. 11 attacks, he had become a hard-edged partisan ideologue on issues such as taxes, the environment and judicial appointments. The war in Iraq and post-Sept. 11 assaults on civil liberties have only added to those divisions.
In Kerry, Democrats have chosen a candidate with the experience and character to handle the burdens of national security in the age of terrorism. They also have chosen a candidate capable of championing the causes of economic and social justice that have been at the heart of Democratic policy since Franklin Roosevelt. The choices seldom have been more stark. In Kerry, Democrats have chosen the candidate best able to offer a responsible alternative to four more years of George W. Bush this fall.
