(4 of 4)
Although Kennedy had hinted long before the death of Mary Jo that he might not run in 1972, no one took his privately expressed doubts very seriously. Aside from his name, vigor, personal attractiveness and political aggressiveness, Kennedy also seemed the leader best equipped to unite his party's major factions. He is probably the only Democrat of national stature who has both a strong following among blacks and young people and firm ties with many Old-Politics professionals. He has become an increasingly articulate spokesman on major issues, most recently the ABM.
The first party problem posed by his eclipse is what one Republican leader calls a "glamour vacuum." Another, potentially more serious threat is that Kennedy's removal from presidential politics —at least for now—could encourage the party's far left to consider founding an independent movement. This could take the form of either a McCarthy-like revolt within the party or an effort to form a new party. At the same time, the prospects of other possible candidates are in flux: ∙HUBERT HUMPHREY. Now that Eugene McCarthy has renounced ambition for another Senate term, Humphrey will almost surely seek his seat in Minnesota next year and enjoy a new national platform. By tradition, Humphrey should be the titular head of the party.
But he is not, and at 58, with the close but bitterly divisive 1968 campaign behind him, Humphrey probably could not run for the presidency again without reducing the party to a shambles, splitting off the younger, activist wings that barely tolerated him last year. ∙EDMUND MUSKIE. In the first six months of this year, Muskie crisscrossed the nation on lecture tours that built his popularity among both regular and irregular Democrats. Last week he said he will resume his travels in the fall. In some ways, he is the most promising Democratic prospect—and doubtless the one who benefits most from Kennedy's troubles. He has few enemies, has done nothing to antagonize any important segment of the party. His understated style invites confidence. On the other hand,
Muskie has so far failed to establish himself as a forceful or inspiring leader on any major issues.
∙ GEORGE McGOVERN. The South Dakota Senator seems considerably less than galvanic, but in his brief bid for the nomination last summer as a stand-in for Robert Kennedy, it was clear that he was gifted with more outspoken political courage than either Muskie or Ted Kennedy. (He was one of the first Senators, for one thing, to oppose the Viet Nam war—in 1963.) He might yet find an impressive constituency among the young, this time as the substitute for another Kennedy. His appeal to the middle and right of the party, however, would almost certainly be small.
Each of the Democrats now being discussed has serious drawbacks as a potential candidate. This, together with the fact that the party is far from united, increases the chance that the Democrats' next nominee will be someone completely unthought of now. Should a dark horse get the nomination, he may owe it to an incomprehensible night on Chappaquiddick Island in the summer of 1969.