
Bob GrahamWho is he kidding?
Updated Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 6:00 PM ET
Although the cast of the 2004 Democratic presidential campaign is pretty much set, the members of the troupe are still auditioning for the leading roles. Who will play the Front-Runner? The Populist Insurgent? The Serious Candidate Not Slick Enough To Win? But while the starring roles remain up in the air, the supporting players have settled comfortably into character. Al Sharpton has dutifully taken up the role that Alan Keyes played in the 2000 Republican campaign, that of the wisecracking sure loser whose entertaining attacks on the other party are more likely to garner him a cable TV show than a presidential nomination. Dennis Kucinich has signed on for a primary season as Gary Bauer ("little fellows, who pack a powerful punch but have no chance," as the Washington Post's Terry Neal put it). And Carol Moseley-Braun is the obvious choice for the year's Quixotic Female Candidate. Now that Florida Sen. Bob Graham has formally declared his candidacy, to that trio you can add a fourth quadrennial archetype: The senator who enters the race with respect, then blows it all by running for president.
Joe Biden and Chris Dodd were rumored to be in the running for Graham's slot, but they backed out, perhaps too intimidated to follow Orrin Hatch's bravura performance from the last go-round or Dick Lugar's from eight years ago. In their absence, the 66-year-old Graham has ably filled the gap. In what must be a presidential candidate first, he waited to officially kick off his campaign until after he had already appeared in one debate. The New York Times called his announcement speech "languorous and at times halting." Pundits and fellow politicians describe his candidacy with the political handicappers' equivalents of book-jacket blurbs that merely summarize the plot: "Mature!" "Executive experience!" "Hails from the fourth-largest state!" In the most recent New Hampshire poll, Graham trails Wesley Clark and Gary Hart—who aren't even running.
It wasn't supposed to be this way for Graham. When he was first elected to the Senate in 1986 after two successful terms as Florida governor, he was tabbed for greatness, a can't-miss centrist from a large and growing state who was well-connected in Washington circles: He's the half-uncle of Washington Post publisher Donald Graham (and as a 3-year-old, spat on Katharine Graham, according to her autobiography). "I think he's going to be president of the United States someday," then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell told the St. Petersburg Times in 1991.
But Graham never distinguished himself in the Senate. Instead, he became a Floridian Al D'Amato, focused on the Everglades, highway funding, and constituent service. Three times—by Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore—he was passed over as a candidate for veep. Other than the fact that he was from Florida, Graham was notable for only two things before 9/11: His monthly "workdays," a sort of Bring Your Senator to Work Day that he uses to stay in touch with voters by working alongside one for an eight-hour day, and his notebooks, in which he chronicles the minute-by-minute details of his daily life, from what he eats ("branola cereal with peach," according to the Time magazine article that published a 1994 Graham diary) to what movies he rewinds (Ace Ventura, according to that same diary). On the Today show Wednesday, Graham defended his idiosyncrasy: "For me, it is a means of organization and discipline. And I guess my question is why more people in public office don't do this."
Of course, Graham isn't running for president as an eccentric scribe. He's running as a prophet of doom, made all the more credible by his perch on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Last October, he warned senators who ignore the threat of increased terrorism because of war with Iraq that "blood is going to be on your hands." A few days later in a Washington Post op-ed, he declared that going to war against Saddam Hussein was "the equivalent of the Allies' declaring war on Mussolini's Italy but ignoring Hitler's Germany." Graham wants the United States to go after five terrorist organizations, in addition to al-Qaida, that "have a history of killing Americans, the ability to strike within the United States and the support of a country that possesses weapons of mass destruction": the Abu Nidal Organization, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Palestine Liberation Front. Although he opposed the war with Iraq, Graham has a history of supporting American military interventions abroad, including Gulf War I, Panama, and Haiti. He supports an Afghanistan-style coalition to take out Hezbollah in Syria. To top it off, last year he told the New York Times he believed that 9/11 could have been avoided.
This frontal assault on President Bush as soft on terrorism led the New Republic in January to call Graham a "surprisingly viable candidate." And this past Sunday, the Washington Post Magazine proclaimed him "The Scariest Man in Washington": "a kind of freakout candidate, a red-alert politician for a freakout nation." But Graham's kickoff campaign event downplayed the doomsaying in favor of familiar populism. "Co-workers" from Graham's workdays stood on stage and clapped to the Alabama song "Forty Hour Week," an ersatz Whitman ditty about working Americans with lyrics like "Working together like spokes inside a wheel/ They keep this country turning around." An inarticulate but appealing truck driver, who noted that he's a Rush Limbaugh-listening Republican who's intrigued by school vouchers, helped introduce the candidate. Graham's speech read like a cut-and-paste job from previous Democratic presidential speeches, sounding themes on public education, Social Security, Medicare, civil rights, and the environment. There was also a confusing refrain, in which Graham would periodically declare that something like "targeted tax credits" was "not just my promise—that's the promise of America."
It's too bad. Bob Graham is knowledgeable, likable, and smart. But so's Orrin Hatch. There's a place for politicians like them. It's called the U.S. Senate.
If you liked this Assessment column, check out Backstabbers, Crazed Geniuses, and Animals We Hate, a collection of our all-time funniest, meanest, sweetest, and weirdest profiles.
What It Will Cost You To Deny Illegal Immigrants Health Insurance
Stupid Drug Story of the Week: NBC's Today Show Discovers Huffing
Can the Government Call God Jesus? What About Allah?
How Twilight Made Goth Fashion Mainstream
Is Disney's The Suite Life Making Your Child Into an Evil Lothario?
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock












Remarks from the Fray:
…Mr. Suellentrop is correct. Senator Graham is probably fooling nobody but himself if he thinks he has a chance of winning the Presidency in 2004 or any other time. However, Democrats should not fool themselves into thinking he belongs in the Senate. With a little coaching to avoid embarrassing himself or his ticket, Graham belongs in the White House - in the Vice-President's office.
--The_Bell
(To reply, click here)
Since at least Ike, American voters, when presented with a choice between Republican or Democrat, have unfailingly chosen the candidate that's more interesting. Regardless of party, economic circumstance, American voters have consistently expressed a singular preference: for the candidate who is more interesting. Look at the record: Ike over Stevenson, JFK over Nixon, LBJ over Goldwater, Nixon over whoever Humphrey/McCarthy (?), Carter over Ford, Reagan over Carter, Reagan over Mondale, Bush over Dukakis, Clinton over Bush (insert joke here), Clinton over Dole, Bush II over Gore (say "stolen" all you want, but W's the one on the aircraft carrier right now). In every case, the more interesting guy won. Charisma, womanizing, a history of substance abuse and/or killing a man in battle are all far better indicators of victory than those tired criteria of experience, geographic origin, pedigree, character, maturity or positions on "the issues". On this point, the experts have proven almost unbelievably wrong. Because Graham is light-years less interesting than W., Bush II could strangle a nun with his penis while snorting a line of coke on national TV and bombing Mexico, and still clean Bob Graham's clock 100 elections out of 100. Ditto for Kerry, Edwards, Moseley-Braun and Dean. And don't get me started on Clean Joe Lieberman. Should any of these people receive the Democratic nomination, they will have as much chance of winning as the Washington Wizards. We can stand for 4 years of war, famine, poverty, high taxes, deficits, mutually assured destruction or daily mentions of the distinguishing marks on the President's penis, but the one thing we cannot abide is being bored…
--CaptainRonVoyage
(To reply, click here)
Yeah, it's almost certainly a mistake for Graham to run for the Presidency - now or ever. But there are sillier candidates sitting up there under the Democratic banner, participating in this campaign. Far sillier- must I really name them? But he doesn't seem to be a credible candidate so why is Mr. Suellentrop even bothering? Oh, right, because of his seat on the Intelligence Committee. Still his actions seem very peculiar to me. Opposing the war in Iraq was a reasonable option but arguing that it was wrong but somehow didn't go far enough is more than a little bit conflicted….The funny thing is that he is right to a point. Any war on terror has to go after the groups he named and not just because they have targeted Americans either. In fact, a number of them probably should have come right after Al Qaeda. But how can anyone argue that we should go further yet remain opposed to going at all? Perhaps there is something I or Mr. Suellentrop have missed?
--mikkyld
(To reply, click here)
(5/9)