EEUU

Las tácticas de campaña se revierten a medida que cambian los acontecimientos

Autor: Adam Nagourney

Fecha: 4/11/2003

Traductor: Celeste Murillo, especial para P.I.

Fuente: New York Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 — In Iowa on Monday, Howard Dean was talking not about the economy, but about the deadly turmoil in Iraq, and what it would mean for the presidential race.
"It weakens the position of the president and my Democratic opponents," said Dr. Dean, a Democratic contender who, as one of the most vocal critics of the war, cited the attack on a Chinook helicopter that took the lives of 16 American soldiers on Sunday. "There are now almost 400 people dead who wouldn't be dead if that resolution hadn't been passed and we hadn't gone to war."
In Birmingham, Ala., in a speech to workers at a warehouse, President Bush talked less about the latest death toll and more about the report late last week of surging third quarter economic growth.
"Our economy is gaining some momentum," he said, dismissing Democrats who had warned that his tax cuts would devastate the nation's economy. "We've got a consistent and effective strategy, and we're making progress."
The day was a snapshot of the presidential contest, as realities on the ground — the upbeat economic growth figures and the deadly helicopter attack — intruded on the best-laid plans of the candidates and this White House.
The Democrats want to blame Mr. Bush for a weak economy that may be finding its step just in time for next year's election, while Mr. Bush is confronting the possibility of campaigning against a backdrop of American casualties and chaos in the war he began.
So in the topsy-turvy world of presidential politics, Mr. Bush was talking up the economy — the very issue that Democrats have long argued would make him a one-term president. And Democrats were hammering Mr. Bush on the very subject that many Republicans argued would guarantee his re-election: foreign policy.
This could very well prove to be a passing moment in the larger struggle of whether the course of this campaign will be determined more by foreign policy or by the economy. Still, over the last few days there has clearly been an across-the-board recalibration by Democrats and Mr. Bush as they try to keep up — and capitalize on — the changing landscape.
So in Alabama on Monday, Mr. Bush combined a somber declaration of perseverance in Iraq with a jaunty assessment of the economy. "Remember this last week, the surprising announcement — at least, it confounded some of the experts — that our third-quarter economic growth was vibrant, and that's good," he said. "Inflation is down, and that's good. After-tax incomes are up. People are keeping more of their own money, and that's really important for economic growth."
Several Democrats, meanwhile, moved to retool their message on the economy to account for the new economic figures. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who campaigned in Iowa on Monday, said in a telephone interview that the growth figures would mean little to Americans who remain worried about high unemployment.
"Out across the country, people are very worried about jobs, worried about their families, worried about the potential for a plant or facility closing," Mr. Edwards said. "There's no such thing as a jobless recovery."
Wesley K. Clark, a retired general, issued a written statement saying: "On May 1, the president declared `Mission Accomplished' on Iraq. Yet we still have no plan to bring peace to Iraq and protect our soldiers. President Bush seems ready to declare `Mission Accomplished' on our economy. I say: `Not yet Mr. President — we've lost too many jobs.' "
In Clinton, Iowa, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts had just finished addressing a lunch when Highland Nichols, a retired construction worker and former chairman of the local county Democratic committee, expressed unvarnished concern to Mr. Kerry about what the economic figures would mean for Democratic hopes of retaking the White House.
"The administration had spokesmen out touting the rebound in the economy," he said, adding: "They were saying this is going to take away the Democratic platform."
Mr. Kerry responded: "I hope we have a good economy. It doesn't change anything that I'm saying or fighting about if we have a good economy. We still have a problem with health care for Americans, right?"
While the economic news may complicate the Democratic case against Mr. Bush, some Democrats are still struggling to define their positions on Iraq. Dr. Dean, for one, argues that his opponents who favored the war resolution were now in an even weaker political position given the events in Iraq.
"I think it was going to be a big issue anyway," Dr. Dean said in a telephone interview from Iowa. "But it certainly is going to be a more divisive issue among the Democrats, because things are clearly not going well. I think it works in favor of the Democrats — if I become the nominee."
The candidates who voted for the resolution include Mr. Kerry, Mr. Edwards, Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. General Clark, a retired general, has fiercely criticized Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, but last month in an interview described his position as the same as those members of Congress. He said he, too, probably would have voted for the resolution, but later retracted his statement.
Three other Democratic presidential candidates — Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York and former Senator Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois — have also been strong opponents of the war.
Those Democrats who voted for the resolution have been challenged on the votes almost wherever they go, from farms in Iowa to town hall meetings in New Hampshire to nearly every one of their televised debates. They are now struggling to defend the original votes, and move quickly to condemn Mr. Bush in an area where all the Democrats now view him as vulnerable.
"But what is truly infuriating is the fact that this administration, the Bush administration, conducted a foreign policy that so pushed our allies away," Mr. Lieberman told a women's missionary group at the Williams Chapel A.M.E. Church in Orangeburg, S.C., adding: "And then had no plans for what to do the day after Saddam fell that we're now in a situation which we ought not to be in, which is that American soldiers are almost totally alone in keeping the peace there. We saw the loss of 16 more yesterday."
Mr. Gephardt, who was one of the original sponsors of the Iraq resolution, said in Concord, N.H., that the nation could not step back now.
"We have to prevail," Mr. Gephardt told reporters. "We have to bring democracy to Iraq. We cannot fail. If you think Afghanistan was a terrorist training camp, you wait. If you leave Iraq, it will be a terrorist training camp the likes of which would make Afghanistan look simple. In our own deep self-interest, to prevent future acts of terrorism, we have to succeed."
He, too, proceeded to criticize Mr. Bush. "We need a president who can get the world to work together with us to solve this problem," Mr. Gephardt said.
Mr. Kerry struck a similar note in Iowa. "What the president is doing is in fact exposing the troops to greater danger than if he did the diplomacy correctly at bringing other countries into this effort," he said.