TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 021092 / 0210104.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 5.8 KB | 118 lines

<text id=92TT0285> <title> Feb. 10, 1992: The Political Interest </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 Feb. 10, 1992 Japan </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> NATION, Page 27 THE POLITICAL INTEREST The Vulture Watch </hdr><body> By Michael Kramer Professional Democrats--the party officials, fund raisers and activists who have labored more than a decade to recapture the White House--are beside themselves. They are reasonably certain that Bill Clinton will be their nominee and almost as sure that he will lose to George Bush in the fall. In spite of Clinton's semi-admission of past infidelity, they believe that the Arkansas Governor will either win or run a close second in New Hampshire on Feb. 18. New Hampshire voters are notoriously fickle, but assuming Clinton does as well as expected, he will then probably do equally well on Super Tuesday (March 10). A win the following week in Illinois could virtually secure the prize. Clinton could be derailed if other high heels drop before those contests; his pollster describes his position as "precarious," and his campaign manager says, "More names will be coming." The questions are when such stories appear, how many there are, and of course the facts surrounding each charge. The vehicle of revelation, a "cash for trash" tabloid or the mainstream press, is secondary. "Nor will it matter that many say extramarital affairs are irrelevant to job performance," says a depressed Clinton adviser. "An odor will develop, a stench that will eventually cause voters to say they don't want as a role model for their kids a leader who has fooled around. It is one thing to learn about affairs after a guy's President and proves that it doesn't matter; it's quite another to vote for someone when the truth is known in advance." Of the dozen Democratic heavyweights interviewed, only one is willing to be quoted by name; the others fear alienating Clinton or have yet to see how they might collectively engineer an alternative candidacy. The lone exception is Victor Kamber, a well-regarded Democratic consultant who supports Tom Harkin but whose analysis nonetheless is credible since it fairly reflects what the others say privately. "We've been optimistic because we've been able to anticipate a general-election campaign that is truly a referendum on Bush's first term," says Kamber. "If that changes, if our nominee's character or fitness for the job becomes the issue--as happened with Dukakis, whom people couldn't see as Commander in Chief--then we're on the slippery slope." Clinton is "getting a lift now," Kamber continues, "a result of a backlash against the media. But the issue will be back in the fall. When more names surface, Bush will turn the focus to family values. The idea that if Hillary forgives him, the rest of us will, or should, is not how it will play. If the polls are right and the 14% of the electorate who say they won't support a womanizer actually vote against Clinton because of his problems, well half of that percentage is usually the difference in presidential elections. We'd probably have to be in a depression for him to overcome that large a deficit." The current contenders (now swiftly descending into the kind of intraparty fratricide that has crippled Democratic nominees for years) are widely seen as inadequate to the task of stopping Clinton or beating Bush. In a TIME/CNN poll taken last week, 58% of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they would like to see someone else in the race. The vulture watch, according to party leaders, includes House majority leader Dick Gephardt, Tennessee Senator Al Gore, West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen and New York Governor Mario Cuomo. Most of these men are looking at the mechanics of launching a bid. The filing periods for many of the primaries are already past or will soon be closed. The dates are important, but not an insurmountable obstacle. If a consensus forms around stopping Clinton, a way could be found. "Time is short," Kamber concedes, "but for another reason beyond the filing deadlines. If Clinton is rolling, he will assert that the voters have spoken. Making the case that he should be denied the nomination anyway because he theoretically can't beat Bush could be seen as ignoring the electorate's will.'' That argument would probably cause most of those mentioned to sit on their hands, and rightly so; the voters' judgment should be respected. "If anyone decides to run, even without a consensus that someone should," says Kamber, "it will probably be Cuomo." Where is Hamlet, whom the TIME/CNN poll identifies as the first choice of those pining for another candidate? New York's budget mess is still a mess. Some disagree, but Cuomo thinks his state's fiscal problems can be resolved by March 1, which could free him to run. In his favor if he chooses to go is the fact that a "Draft Cuomo" movement has already fielded a technically uncommitted slate for Illinois' March 17 primary. So the scenarios are being spun. The noodling is embryonic--it cannot yet even be called planning--but the angst is real, and Kamber's assessment of the hardball to come if Clinton survives is as certain as George Bush's ambition. "How a man conducts his private life is relevant to how he would run the nation," says Rich Bond, the new Republican National Committee chairman. "But I think the public's continued tolerance of this kind of muck is zero." A kinder, gentler campaign from the President who has said he will do "whatever it takes" to be re-elected? Come on. </body></article> </text>