Election 2004

In the crowded, noisy field of presidential candidates, Al Sharpton is the wittiest and most transiently crowd-pleasing contender. However, since he has never repented his involvement in the opprobrious Tawana Brawley fraud, his only achievable goal in this race is to surpass Jesse Jackson as the most visible national black leader.

Moreover,sinceMr. Sharpton’s platform, like those of his Democratic rivals, has more to do with bristling rhetoric than substance, his most notable, unrivaled performance was his graceful, gliding series of dance steps on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.”

The two qualities that usually open the Oval Office to a candidate are likeability and credibility. The former, as Al Gore learned, can’t be manufactured by changing one’s images, including clothing.

Against Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, despite an undistinguished record as a congressman, had likeability and wit. Nixon, uncomfortable in himself, had none. Lyndon Johnson, though master of the Senate, had little likeability or credibility until fate propelled him into the Oval Office. There, he gained some credibility as a genuine civil-rights leader until his continuation of the war in Vietnam, against his own instincts, ended his presidency.

Among the current crop of presidential hopefuls, Dr. Howard Dean has become the main candidate against whom the most stinging witticisms are directed, and not only by his Democratic competitors. If he gets the nomination, a recurring theme in Republican ads will likely be John Kerry’s jab at the vacillating doctor: “People are left wondering: What will he say next? And then, will Dean reverse himself?”

For a growing number of temperate Americans, Mr. Dean is neither likeable nor credible. But his momentum has not yet slowed, largely because of the raging Bush-haters in the Democratic Party,andthetireless, sprightly cadre of young Internet idealists who yearn for another Camelot (whether they’ve seen the movie or not).

I recognize those symptoms, having been part of a similar collective youthful leap of faith when I was a supporter of former Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson for president. Stevenson sought to raise the level of public debate and awareness nationwide, using his eloquent command of language and impeccably sharp wit, during his campaign against Dwight D. Eisenhower. When he was later our ambassador to the United Nations, I visited him as part of an anti-Vietnam War delegation. We asked him how he — this man of pure reason and crystalline wit we had so admired — could now, before the world, repeat the administration’s slippery talking points justifying the war. Even after being repeatedly asked, he kept evading the question.

As we talked, Stevenson’s former grace of language and bearing disappeared. It was only at the end of our meeting that — with a sudden sincerity that I found moving — he thanked us genuinely for coming.

If Mr. Dean’s army of true believers suffers the similar unmasking of their leader, I hope they will not lose faith in having faith, provided they temper righteousness with judgment.

Gen.Wesley Clark’s medals gave him an appearance of gravity for a time, although one of his former very high-rankingmilitary colleagues chillingly and very publicly said Mr. Clark would not have his vote, questioning Mr. Clark’s character. As the campaign continues, Mr. Clark, like Mr. Dean, often speaks more quickly than he thinks, and later often finds himself clarifying his statements. He seems to be continually in the process of formation, not an especially reassuring quality for the prospective leader of the free world.

Of the rest of the Democraticaspirants,Dick Gephardt has somewhat more likeability than the horde following Dean. (I almost forgot John Kerry, but that omission is understandable these days.) And Dennis Kucinich never understood that evidence of weapons of mass destruction was in plain sight — in Saddam Hussein’s mass graves. However, Mr. Kucinich was far ahead of his rivals in exposing the Bush-Ashcroft war against the Bill of Rights. But, as a candidate, Mr. Kucinich doesn’t have a chance.

Mr. Gephardt, to return to actual contenders, has been around the block too often to speed across the finish line. If he does prevail, I might vote for him because he defied his leader, Bill Clinton, and voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has led to the freeing of so many jobs from American workplaces.

Joseph Lieberman is also rather overfamiliar, although he got a jolt of sympathy when Al Gore, like a NAFTA-reveling employer, outsourced his support to a candidate other than his faithful former running mate. John Edwards decided to be a soloist too soon. And, as for Carol Moseley Braun, she has some good ideas, a confident smile and a profitable lecture-circuit future.

The present White House incumbent appears, according to the polls, to have enough likeability and credibility to stay there — provided the killing of American soldiers in Iraq is stopped.

I cannot vote for George W. Bush, because, as commander in chief, he arrogates the sole power to imprison American citizens as “enemy combatants” indefinitely, without charges and without guaranteed access to a lawyer. But I doubt that my main requirement — that the next president uphold the essential rule of law, due process — will be that of the majority of voters.

Maybe in future elections, the Constitution will be more visible to more voters. And that is up to our public schools — and the media.