Gary Hart to probably enter race
Looks like you’ll be able to add one more to the list of Democratic candidates seeking the nomination. I don’t have any inside information on this, but Gary Hart is certainly looking and sounding like he’s made up his mind and he’s throwing his hat in the ring.
Winding up a two-day swing through Iowa yesterday, Hart was talking to activists about his ideas in a very candidate-like fashion.
“I am not a politician. I am a public servant, and if I can do that at the national level, then so be it,” Hart said. “I think there is a vacuum in the Democratic Party, and I think I have a different approach.”
He said he would announce his decision this week, but it sounds like, on a personal level, the decision has already been made.
I’m not quite sure how I feel about Hart’s candidacy. As far as negatives go, I don’t think the “Monkey Business” fiasco will doom his chances, but I believe he will be hampered by the perception that he is a candidate of the past. He did, after all, run for president twice in the ’80s. Occasionally, a candidate can run, fail, and still mount a credible race years later (see Nixon in ’68), but it’s usually four to eight years later, not 20.
To his benefit, Hart’s expertise is national security, particularly domestic defense, about which he has spoken and written prolifically. In fact, Hart, serving as a co-chair of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, more or less predicted an attack on the U.S. like the one we suffered on 9/11.
Hart’s national profile actually rose considerably after the terrorist attacks because of his knowledge of the issue. The public learned, for example, that the presidential commission Hart helped lead for a two-and-a-half years reported to the Bush administration that there was an urgent need to address domestic terrorist threats shortly after Bush’s inauguration.
As it turns out, the president announced in May 2001 that he was putting aside the commission’s recommendations and asking Vice President Cheney to launch a new study of potential terrorist threats, which tragically barely got underway before Sept. 11, 2001.
Hart, therefore, can speak to one of the most serious issues of the day. I have a nagging feeling, though, that this is the right message but the wrong messenger.
If you’re really interested on the evolution of Hart’s interest in the campaign, The New Republic ran a terrific article about the process in December. It’s available here, but I think you may have to be a subscriber to read it. Also, Richard Ben Cramer did a terrific job with his profile on Hart in his landmark book, “What It Takes.”