The man who can beat Bush in 2004

The Afghan warriors of the Taliban and the leaders of Iraq's Baath party are not the only ones hiding these days. We can find our very own breed of cave-dwellers right here at home. Under the protective darkness of their caves, these shy creatures have apparently weathered the storm. Timidly, these ostrich-like life forms, otherwise know as the Democrats, are sticking their heads out form the ground. And it's about time they did. Fearful of being labeled as unpatriotic by their more forceful cousins, the Democrats had nowhere to go during the war with Iraq, so they ran for cover. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that their mascot is a donkey (why they would choose such an unfavorable animal is totally beyond the grasp of foreigners like me). The truth is they couldn't speak out against the war they had voted for, and they couldn't join the other Bush worshipers in their chorus of adulation.

But, with a full year ahead of them before the election race enters its final stages, and with the war in Iraq effectively over, their low-key strategy might actually work. Yes, the President has gained political capital for his military victory, but he now looks more vulnerable to attacks on his domestic agenda. That's exactly what the Democrats should focus on as soon as they decide to get out of their closets.

The Democratic leadership must be dreading the forthcoming election of November 2004. Unseating a president is challenging enough, but defeating a powerful, popular president precisely during a period of unprecedented national vulnerability is a daunting task. 9/11 changed priorities in the minds of voters -- we saw that during the midterm election. This new sense of insecurity weighted heavy on voter's decisions. And to whom will voters turn in 2004 if the post 9/11 sense of insecurity lingers? The answer is Bush, because he is overwhelmingly perceived to be tough on terrorism.

Karl Rove knows this, and you can bet he will use the security threat card during Bush's re-election campaign. We already know that the Republican National Convention, during which Bush will accept his party's nomination, will be held unusually late next year so that its date will almost coincide with the third anniversary of the terrorist attacks. The convention will also be held in New York. It's not hard to put two and two together and see what Rove is up to.

As bad as this all may seem to the Democrats, they still have a fighting chance. But they do have to be smart, and it remains to be seen if they can do that. The first thing they need to do is return to the spotlight ASAP. They need to break their vote of silence and start denouncing the President's neglect of the economy, corporate sleaziness, the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and the 9/11 inquiries. They should also bring light to the damage Bush's foreign policy has inflicted upon multilateral relations. Actually, Democrats are not short of political ammunition. But they have to aim right, and they need a leader who can make voters interested in these issues.

Of all the candidates who are seeking the Democratic Party's nomination, John Kerry is in the best position to beat Bush in 2004. At least that's my opinion. At first glance, choosing the Massachusetts Senator might seem like a sure way to hell for the Democrats. To pit him against the macho rancher from Texas will produce inevitable comparisons unfavorable for Kerry. After all, he fits perfectly well all the stereotypes of the typical New England-limousine-liberal. He does seem to have a haughty attitude, and some White House insiders even say he looks "French" (a grave insult nowadays, mon Dieu!).

But these apparent liabilities can be turned into assets. What the Democrats need is someone who is as different from Bush as possible. Kerry meets that profile. Bush's style worked in 2000 (or did it? Last time I checked he actually lost the election!), but that doesn't mean it's the only one that can put you in the White House. To think that all Americans romanticize President Bush's fake westerner's rugged lifestyle and down to earth simplemindedness is ridiculous.

Any attempt to find a candidate who will appeal to the Red America constituency who voted for Bush in 2000 is doomed. That is why someone such as North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who is both a Southerner and pro-War, does not stand a chance. You can't beat Bush at playing Bush. You got to come up with an alternative that other Americans identify themselves with. Kerry is a classy guy who doesn't pretend to be anyone other than who he is. He is authentic. Plus, haughty as he may seem, Kerry is not robotic like Al Gore, which was the former vice president's main problem.

Another good thing Kerry has going for him is his stance on Iraq. Of all the candidates, he came out the strongest with the end of this war. About half the Democratic candidates strongly opposed the war. Now that it's over they don't have much to say. The other half was in favor of it. If you support the President on such a huge issue, he comes out stronger, not you.

Only Kerry stroked the right cord. He said he supported the war, hell, he even voted for it. But he also strongly disagrees with the way it was pursued, alienating important allies and undermining international institutions. That's the kind of message that will resonate with people. That's where Kerry could have the upper hand against the President. If he plays his cards right, Kerry can easily grab the Democratic nomination. He would fight a tough battle against the President, but he is in a better position to fight it than any of his colleagues.