A stumbling start for Democrat candidates

George Will:

TWO Democratic presidential candidates with national campaign experience are stumbling. A Republican candidate who has run only municipal campaigns is confounding expectations, calling into question some assumptions about Republican voters.

John Edwards has learned - surely he did not know it when they were hired - that two women employed by his campaign have Internet trails of anti-Christian, and especially anti-Catholic, rants. One of them wrote a profane screed about God impregnating Mary, and said the Catholic Church opposes the morning-after birth control pill in order to "force women to bear more tithing Catholics." The other woman, who sprinkles her commentary with a vulgar term for female genitalia, referred to George W. Bush's "wingnut Christofascist base."

When the women's works became known, it was reported that they were, or were going to be, fired. Thirty-six hours later, after left-wing bloggers rallied to their defense, Edwards' campaign said they would be retained. Edwards explained that the women had assured him that "it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word."

He really does? The two women - both of whom have resigned, pronouncing themselves, of course, victims of intolerance - are what they are, and are unimportant. But the fact that a prospective president is so pliable under pressure, and so capable of smarmy insincerity - what does he think were the women's intentions? - is very important.

In New Hampshire recently, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, "Now that we have a Democratic president . . . " Quickly correcting this slip, she said she meant "a Democratic Congress," but added: "If we had a Democratic president, we would end the war."

Well. She and others say they can "end the war." That phrase is a flinch from facts. They mean they can end U.S. involvement in the war. No one believes the United States has the power to prevent the war from raging on.

But if a Democratic president would implement withdrawal, the Democratic Congress could, by forbidding further spending to sustain forces in Iraq. So why is Clinton, who says that a Democratic president would properly withdraw U.S. forces, not voting for a policy she considers proper?

...

Regarding the GOP race, for many months commentators have said that when the Republican base learns the facts about Rudy Giuliani's personal life and views on social issues, support for him will evaporate.

But such commentary is becoming self-refuting. The insistent reiteration of it during Giuliani's campaigning is telling activist Republicans - the sort of people who read political commentary - the facts about Giuliani. So far those facts are not causing a recoil from him: According to the USA Today/CNN poll, his lead over John McCain has risen from 31-27 in November to 40-24 today.

...

At some point others besides conservatives and liberals will note how hollow the Democrat non-bonding resolution is. It is an act that demonstrates a lack of resolve to win or lose. As will points out, the Democrats have voted to defend US actions in Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Lebanon. They know how to stop our participation in a war. They also must on some level recognize that it is not going to stop the war.