The Nation: Edward Kennedy: Now the Hope

SOMETIMES it was difficult to tell who the Democratic presidential candidate was, George McGovern or Edward Kennedy. Whenever Kennedy appeared with McGovern, the crowd invariably doubled. Time and again, cheering spectators would brush past the nominee to gush over an embarrassed Ted. McGovern had trouble articulating bread-and-butter issues for man-in-the-street Democrats—a task that comes easy for Kennedy. While living with impending defeat this fall, Democrats dreamed of victory next time with Ted. No wonder that before the final votes were counted, Kennedy was being touted for 1976.

He suggests that he would not be diverted by the kind of peripheral issues that got McGovern into so much hot water, such as abortion, amnesty, marijuana. “Unfortunately for the country, there were a lot of nonissues in this campaign,” Kennedy told TIME on Election Night, “and the Republicans were able to capitalize on them.” Loyally refusing to accept the massive defeat as a rejection of Democratic Party philosophy, Kennedy gives George Mc-Govern credit for “plowing lots of new ground in this campaign. As in the case of Adlai Stevenson, McGovern may well have pointed to a direction in which this country will move in the years to come.”

But Kennedy was cautious about saying who is fit to lead the party out of its current wilderness. He plans to keep his profile as low as possible as long as possible. “I’m not thinking in terms of 1976 and myself at all,” he declared. From his perspective, that is sound strategy. Even if he wants to run —and that is by no means certain yet —it would be risky to accept the deluge of speaking invitations he has received or in any way project himself as the front runner. That path is fraught with hazards. For a Kennedy it would be especially perilous, since the magic of the name arouses visceral resentment as well as admiration. Better to cool it in the Senate and prove his capacity for leadership by fighting for legislation like his national health-insurance bill. The fact that Congress remains in the hands of Democrats will provide him with a platform, and if a presidential veto blocks a measure that he sponsors, so much the better for projecting the Senator as his party’s spokesman. He can also score points off Republicans by pushing his judiciary subcommittee’s investigation of the Watergate episode and other campaign sabotage.

Kennedy’s success in the Senate might further dim the public memory of Chappaquiddick, which still lingers uneasily in the minds of many voters and of party professionals as well. Much as they respect Ted’s political skills, the pros wonder if he has the character to survive the long pull of presidential politics. Even casual gossip, which they would dismiss if it concerned another man, makes them edgy when it involves Kennedy. There are occasional rumors of girl chasing that disturb his fellow Democrats. About his general restlessness, one party elder muses: “There’s something for psychiatry here.” Another Democrat feels that Ted is “trouble-prone.” Says a longtime Senate comrade: “He’s got a fine future if he can keep his snoot clean.”

Whatever his flaws and virtues, Kennedy now stands for what the party thinks it needs: a figure who can appeal to most Democrats across the party spectrum, a man with a knack for politics who shone in a campaign where that quality was disastrously lacking. If Ted Kennedy falters or falls short somewhere along the line, the Democrats will have to find or invent someone like him to try to carry them to victory four years hence.