COLUMN LEFT/ ELAINE CIULLA KAMARCK : Democrats Need Their Optimism : Strong oratory but a paucity of solutions isn’t a recipe for an out-party victory in 1992.

The most enduring and endearing characteristic of professional Democrats is their unflagging optimism.

The mood among the more than 400 members of the Democratic National Committee who gathered to hear their 1992 presidential hopefuls in Los Angeles last weekend was ebullient--the contenders had come to woo the party faithful and the race had, at long last, begun.

Three of the speakers, Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, prompt memories of an eloquent past when great orators such as Daniel Webster and Henry Clay defined American politics. Clinton, with his slow Southern drawl and emphasis on community, unites and comforts. One of the most powerful segments of his speech was his reminder that, when the going gets tough, race is used to divide us one from another.

Harkin’s flat Midwestern yell is the voice of a prairie populist; his insistence on calling Bush by his full patrician name--George Herbert Walker Bush--is a great touch for Democratic audiences.

And finally Jackson, who may not even end up running for President but who can’t resist the opportunity to show up for a speech, wove a sermon about America around the incident of deadly fire in a chicken factory in North Carolina and brought tears to the eyes of many. If oratory won presidential elections, George Bush would be in trouble. But it doesn’t.

As for the others--people were polite for the intense and thoughtful Paul Tsongas, the first, and for a while the only, presidential candidate. Former California Gov. Jerry Brown did nothing to combat his “moonbeam” reputation with his attack on the entire political process and on the cancer of money that is “feeding at the soul of this party.” Larry Agran, the mayor of Irvine, began his speech with a song of praise for former presidential candidate George McGovern and was ignored, as was Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma, the newest entrant to the race, who sounded a forceful wake-up call to the Democratic Party.

Missing from the gathering was Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder, who is likely to run a very different campaign from that of the first black presidential candidate, Jackson. Also missing was Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a beautiful person who seems to have a great deal of support among the beautiful people of Southern California--although no one knows yet just what he stands for.

While most of the candidates gave eloquent narrations of America’s problems, the lack of presidential-level solutions meant that so far these candidates merely scratched the Republicans. Harkin’s enthusiasm for putting people to work building bridges is an important economic goal but one that is oddly reminiscent of 1936, not 1992, when the central economic issue is American international competitiveness.

The paucity of solutions meant that the attacks on Bush were far from effective. But to the extent that solutions were offered, they reflected an emerging split within Democratic ranks on how to handle Bush. Harkin, in the spirit of Harry Truman, is a fighter who mocks the President and believes that there is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party that a good deal of old-fashioned religion won’t cure. This is a good tactic for the primaries, and Harkin can already pocket a fair amount of support among the labor movement, an important primary constituency.

Clinton, on the other hand, understands that Democrats have a problem that goes beyond Bush to the very essence of the party. Thus he begins by recasting the Democratic message around a new and potentially powerful theme. His idea of “personal responsibility” calls to task Wall Street and welfare recipients in one rhetorical gambit. This theme could have immense power for a broad middle class sick of Americans’ tendency to blame everything on someone else. But it remains to be seen whether a party addicted to championing victims’ causes can break the habit.

If the Democrats gathered in Los Angeles gave only glancing blows to the Republicans, it is due to a problem that can be summed up in one simple statistic. After more than a year of recession, the electorate still maintains that the Republicans are better able to manage the economy than the Democrats. This translates to a resounding vote of no confidence in the Democratic Party.

Democratic candidates will have to rebuild confidence in the party. For until they do, the collected tales of woe, powerful as they may be, will not turn the tables in 1992.