By Colby Itkowitz

WASHINGTON

Two men in about their mid-30s sat side-by-side yesterday, each representing his respective political party. Proud and seemingly well-versed committeemen, their insider political references and head spinning spew of acronyms were lost on many of us – it was like they were having a private party and forgot to extend invitations to anyone else in the room.

Neither whipped out lances to duel on the tabletop as some of us were yearning to witness, or even attempted a battle of wits. They didn’t seem angry with each other or eager to crush the other’s esteem. But, then it wasn’t what they were saying that identified them as segregates across the political spectrum, but rather their dispositions that characterized them as symbols of today’s two political parties.

The Republican, his shoulders squared, turned his back slightly toward his Democratic counterpart. He spoke with complete confidence and an air of undeniable arrogance. His self-assurance never faltered when he said without a semblance of doubt that his party would capture the majority in Congress again in 2004. According to the Cook Political Report, the Republicans are likely to win seats to make them only four short of the majority. The Republicans, therefore, only have to focus their energy and resources on four congressional campaigns in the nation. A feat, the Republican said, could be accomplished with their eyes closed.

The Democrat, slightly slouching and looking a touch disheveled, swiveled his chair diagonally toward his Republican counterpart. He said the Democrats would probably take the Senate majority, or maybe it would be 50-50, or maybe it would be 49-51…he wasn’t really sure. So he turned to the Republican to verify his claims. “Don’t you think, so?” he asked. He didn’t want to make a sudden statement without checking with the Republican first. He couldn’t be certain, so he let the Republican take a stand.

These are our nation’s two political parties.

The American people covet true leadership. They care less about what is being said and focus on the confidence and presentation of ideals. The Republicans, capturing a radical right-wing stronghold, have held firmly to their issues since day one. George W. Bush has never faltered from his outrageous and arguably inexplicable excuses for a war with Iraq. As the evidence mounted that the more than 1,000 Americans died without a clear cause, Bush’s tenacity never wavered. He stood, like the Republican committeeman, his back toward the rest of the country, and never looked back.

Until Monday when John Kerry officially began his presidential campaign at New York University, it looked like Kerry’s need to please all people was his tragic character flaw-the certainty of his demise. The public was starving for a decisive and assertive foreign policy from Kerry and until this week it seemed that, like the Democratic committeeman, he was not going to stand behind any solid belief.

The scope of the campaign has changed now. Though Kerry may still be a “flip-flopper” in the eyes of the Republican right, he is finally capitalizing on the general sentiments of the public. They will forgive him for changing his stances, as long as he remains steadfast about this new and improved Iraq agenda.

In Newsday on Tuesday, Ivo Daadler, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., summed up Kerry’s aggressiveness:

“Better late than never,” he said. “This is John Kerry’s challenge: He has 43 days to turn this election from what it is today, a question about Kerry and into a question about Bush. This speech [at NYU] makes clear that Iraq is a strength for the challenger and a weakness for the incumbent.”

Colby Itkowitz is a staff correspondent for Newsday in Washington, D.C. through the Washington Center for Politics and Journalism. She also serves as Associate Editor of The Chronicle. You may e-mail her at[email protected].