TIME - Man of the Year/CompactPublishing-TimeMagazine-TimeManOfTheYear-Win31MSDOS.iso/moy/021092/0210104.000

Text File | 1992-10-19 | 5.5 KB | 112 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 27

THE POLITICAL INTEREST

The Vulture Watch


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.