Democrats May Face War Quagmire

Malinda McCollum doesn’t think much of President Bush, but she won’t brook a word of criticism as far as the war in Iraq is concerned. “I don’t think anybody should be expressing any negativity, because people are fighting for our freedom and our values,” said the 51-year-old union representative.

Diane Krell is no Bush fan, either. But she is deeply disappointed with the Democratic Party and its leading White House hopefuls. “I just feel it’s been too much lock step with the administration and not enough questioning or debate” about the war, said the 54-year-old peace activist.

Both women are Democrats and each is committed to seeing Bush defeated in 2004. But their sharply divergent views of the war and their different expectations for the party’s presidential candidates demonstrate the tough time Democrats face as they campaign to replace the nation’s commander in chief.

There are minefields aplenty.

Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who voted to support the war in Iraq, has been pilloried by Republicans for a quip he made April 2 about the need for “regime change” in Washington. It was a line Kerry had used before with little notice -- then the shooting started and the rules of political engagement suddenly changed.

Kerry dismissed the criticism as Republican posturing. “Let’s not have a lot of phony arguments here about what we can and can’t talk about,” he told reporters during a stop Monday at a fine arts elementary school in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “This is a democracy here in the United States, and we have an election, folks,” he said after being serenaded by a third-grade violin quintet. “I mean, you could be at war a year from now, and are we going to put the election on hold? Course not.”

Still, Kerry has not repeated the line, and other Democratic candidates, while refraining from criticism, have said that is not the sort of language they would use. “Each candidate has to do what makes them comfortable,” said Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who has been heckled by Democratic audiences for supporting the Bush administration’s policy toward Iraq. In his case, that means assailing Bush’s performance on issues such as the economy and affirmative action, even while standing “shoulder to shoulder” with the president on the war.

Like other Democratic hopefuls, Lieberman draws a distinction between criticizing Bush on Iraq and taking after the president on domestic issues. To cease all dissent, Lieberman said, would in effect allow Saddam Hussein to dictate the terms of the presidential campaign.

For now, however, the war overshadows all other matters -- and threatens to cleave the Democratic Party like no issue since Vietnam.

While polls show strong overall backing for the ongoing military action, even among Democrats, self-described liberals are less supportive than those who identify themselves as politically moderate or conservative. Liberals -- the Democratic Party base -- are also more tolerant of antiwar dissent and much less supportive of Bush, according to a recent Los Angeles Times poll.

Nancy Curran, 57, was attracted to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean because of his vocal opposition to the war, and she cannot understand why other presidential candidates failed to speak out. “It’s wrong,” said Curran, who waved a handmade Dean sign last week at a Democratic fund-raising dinner outside Atlanta. “I support the troops,” she went on, placing her palm on her chest. But, she said, “I have trouble with those who are not speaking out.”

Some Democrats eyeing the White House have been vocal in their opposition, even with the war underway. Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich has been perhaps the most vociferous, calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops and a halt to the fighting. Former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, who is still deciding whether to run for president, has criticized the administration as “hellbent” on invading Iraq and said the bloodshed could have been avoided through better diplomacy.

Other antiwar candidates -- former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton -- have been less outspoken since the fighting started. Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who opposed last fall’s congressional resolution authorizing war with Iraq, has stated his objections in more measured terms.

That leaves a handful of presidential hopefuls trying to thread their way through the conflicting sentiments of a public strongly backing Bush -- including many of the swing voters needed to win the White House -- and a core of Democratic activists who despise the president and want a candidate who will clobber him, war or no war. Even Dean, who used his antiwar stance to loft himself into contention, has been forced to reckon with that reality.

His audience at the recent Georgia dinner included many, like McCollum, who support Bush on the war even as they contributed $200 to the state Democratic Party to defeat him. “There’ll be plenty of time later to debate the other stuff,” said Howell Keown, 50, a transportation union lobbyist.

When Dean addressed the crowd of about 1,800, he omitted his usual attack on the administration as well as fellow Democrats who backed Bush’s “unilateral” assault on Iraq. (Kerry, who shared the stage, supported the resolution last fall, as did Lieberman, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt). Instead, Dean called for a moment of silence for U.S. troops, “Whether we agree with the policy or we don’t.”

Then, just days later, the campaign focus shifted to Iowa, a state with a strong antiwar movement. Candidates like Edwards had to explain their support for the president’s policy.

Edwards held forth for nearly 90 minutes April 5 at a Democratic town hall meeting in Des Moines. He drew a hearty response by picking Bush apart on everything from his education record -- which literally nauseates him, the senator said -- to the alleged sway that special interests hold over the White House. But when Edwards reiterated his support for the war, calling it “a just cause” and something he backs “unequivocally,” he drew little applause. Most of the 300 activists in the room were silent.

Among them was Robert Burns, 46, chairman of the Warren County Democrats. He said it was “kind of a mystery” why more presidential candidates had not spoken out against the war, suggesting that some “were playing it safe” by supporting Bush.

It is “ridiculous” for people to stifle their dissent, Burns added. “Those soldiers are over there fighting for our freedom of speech.”

But the presidential candidates are not the only ones pulled by the crosscurrents of wartime politics.

Krell, the antiwar activist, said that despite her disappointment with Edwards and other Democrats who backed Bush on Iraq, she has not ruled out supporting one of them if he seems best able to defeat the president in November 2004.

“The dilemma I’m in now is, where do I sacrifice my idealism for my pragmatism?” she said.

James Peterson, seated just a few rows over from Krell at the Des Moines forum, is wrestling with the same question.

“It’s great to win battles,” he said. “But I want to win the war. And right now the war [for Democrats] is beating Bush and winning the White House.”