Democrats Get Mad, Work to Get Even

The day President Bush took office, a pitch from the New Hampshire Democratic Party landed in mailboxes around that state. Kathy Sullivan, the party chairwoman, asked the faithful: “Are you as mad as I am?”

Their resounding reply: $5,000 in checks within the first five days, nearly seven times the normal rate of return.

Democrats may be out but they’re not down.

All across the country, the party reports raising money at a record clip--phone solicitations are up 80% in California since November--and local Democratic headquarters report a flood of new volunteers.

As party leaders gathered in Washington on Friday to pick a new chairman and pick apart last year’s strange election, their pugnacious attitude and determined demeanor was a sharp contrast to the melancholy and brooding that usually accompanies such post-mortems.

“It’s hard . . . to be down in the dumps when [you’ve] got people knocking on the door all the time saying, ‘I want to help. I’m with you. Let’s go,’ ” said Joe Andrew, outgoing national party chairman. “These people are ready to fight.”

Not surprisingly, much of the focus Friday was on the disputed presidential race and its agonizing aftermath, which continues to turn political convention on its head. Consider the support--and affection even--for Al Gore.

After failing to win the White House, Democratic presidential nominees Walter F. Mondale and Michael S. Dukakis became virtual nonentities within their chastened party. It was years before they were allowed back on stage at national Democratic gatherings.

In contrast, the former vice president is widely--though not universally--considered the early front-runner for the party’s 2004 presidential nomination, which would make him the first Democrat since Adlai E. Stevenson in the 1950s to defy the party’s win-or-be-banished tradition. Gore did not attend Friday’s session and there was no overt presidential politicking. Still, he hovered like a martyred spirit over the partisan gathering.

The reason is simple: Democrats believe they won the election and Republicans stole it.

Gore “is in a different position than any other person who did not win the presidency,” said Carter Eskew, one of his longtime friends and a top campaign advisor. “He has this asterisk by his name, which I think is a very strong one.”

Gore polled 539,000 more votes nationwide than Bush but conceded the race after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, blocked any further canvassing of disputed ballots in Florida.

“As far as we’re concerned, he won,” said Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party. “He’d be in the White House now if the vote had been counted fairly and counted accurately.”

Still, some angry Democrats believe that Gore squandered his political patrimony--the gift of peace and prosperity--by waging an ill-focused and hapless campaign. It would be folly, they say, to give Gore another chance to kick away the White House.

“I got one word for you: Tennessee,” said Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. “Eight years as vice president and you don’t carry your home state? That speaks volumes.”

Garry South, a political aide to California Gov. Gray Davis, agreed. Gore “blew an obvious opportunity. This thing should never have been a contest to begin with.”

That view is especially prevalent among some major Democratic Party donors, many of whom grew chummy with former President Clinton and fault Gore for not utilizing Clinton more extensively in his campaign. “The money people are livid,” said South, who served as a go-between for Gore and some of his major California contributors.

Gore also managed to put off many of his old centrist Democratic allies, who argue that he lost because his populist shift alienated the moderate swing voters crucial to Clinton’s two winning elections.

“The New Deal political philosophy that defined our politics for most of the 20th century has run its course,” said Al From, head of the Democratic Leadership Council, an incubator of the New Democrat movement that Clinton helped lead. “The New Deal coalition cannot be put back together again.”

Next week, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana--a likely 2004 contestant--is set to take over as chairman of the centrist group, which served as a national springboard not only for Clinton but also for Gore’s running mate, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.

Gore, who started teaching part time this week at UCLA, is mum about his political plans, if any. “He knows realistically that the political landscape, particularly with a new president, is not going to have any shape or focus until after the midterm elections” in November 2002, said Eskew.

Should Gore run, he will not get a free ride. Even as vice president and a prohibitive favorite, he drew a surprisingly well financed primary challenge from former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey.

Next time Gore likely would face an even larger and stronger field, with Democrats staging their first wide-open primary fight in 12 years. “There’s no such thing as a free pass, especially when there are so many hungry Democrats out there,” said Donna Brazile, who managed Gore’s 2000 campaign.

For some prospective candidates, the jockeying is already underway. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware plans a political appearance soon in New Hampshire, a key early voting state. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is set to visit Iowa next month. And Torres, head of the California party, said that roughly a half-dozen possible White House hopefuls have expressed interest in appearing at next month’s state Democratic convention in Anaheim.

The would-be candidates were kept away from Friday’s Washington session to ensure that the focus stayed on the race for party chairman. The contest, however, has been utterly suspenseless. On Saturday, the roughly 450 members of the Democratic National Committee are expected to overwhelmingly elect Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of Clinton and major party fund-raiser, over former Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson.

McAuliffe’s elevation can itself be taken as a sign of the party’s brimming confidence. Although he has been associated with several of the Clinton administration’s fund-raising controversies, few seem worried about any political spillover tainting the party or its future candidates.

“Yes, he’s a great fund-raiser,” said Ed Tinsley, a party leader from Montana. “And until we get some substantive campaign finance reform, we’re not going to unilaterally disarm ourselves. Until the system changes we can’t just surrender.”