It's inevitable that 2004 will be a particularly interesting year in politics -- on both sides of the political aisle, but mostly on the Democratic side.
As of now, it appears that the three most interesting players will be President Bush, obviously, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. Once Dean sews up the nomination, will he immediately veer to the center? How much further left will President Bush go on domestic policy? What will Hillary do, and what will she say, as she calculatingly positions herself for the 2008 run?
Think about it: 9-11 caused a paradigm shift in presidential politics. For the foreseeable future the driving issue will likely not be the economy, but national security and foreign policy. This works to the substantial disadvantage of the Democrats.
As congenital doves who are soft on national defense, they don't inspire confidence in these areas. But Republicans, and specifically George Bush, do. The public feels more secure under their leadership.
Compounding the Democrats' problem is that presidents are more relevant during wartime -- and the public knows it. Their policies and actions as commander in chief have a major and potentially immediate impact on military and foreign affairs. On the other hand, while a president's domestic policies can greatly affect the economy -- such as with Bush's tax cuts -- they are much less frequent, and their results are generally less immediate. (How often during a presidential term do you have a major tax bill?)
And by the way, these aren't just problems the Democratic Party has with the antiwar Howard Dean, though they are worse if he's their nominee. It's been almost comical to watch the other eight candidates criticizing Dean for his antiwar stances when they barely have more credibility on national defense.
Just think of them as Dean light. None of them holds a candle to Bush here. None of them is enthusiastic about prosecuting this war; they reserve their excitement for such specious concerns as whether Bush is involving enough nations in his decisions and whether he exaggerated reports of WMD. It's as if the other Democratic presidential contenders are saying, "Don't vote for Dean because he is utterly irresponsible on national security issues. Vote for us; we are just marginally irresponsible." (Do you think one single international terrorist is rooting for Bush in 2004?)
But it will be interesting to see how much more strident Dean's desperate opponents will become in trying to derail him. And things will get even more fascinating once the conventions are over and the general election campaigning begins.