An Overview of the 

2004 Presidential Race

The 2004 race for the White House begins with the Iowa caucuses on

January 19, and then, a little more than a week later the New Hampshire primary

on January 27. These initial election events are considered to be the official start

to the campaign season, and their outcomes will set the tone for the primaries and

caucuses that follow, state by state, until early June. On March 2, “Super Tuesday,”

10 states—California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,

New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont—will hold primary elections or 

caucuses. Many believe that the eventual Democratic nominee will be known

soon after this date. President Bush, running unopposed for the Republican

nomination, is certain to be his party’s candidate. 

This year there are nine Democratic contenders—former Senator Carol

Moseley Braun, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley

Clark, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, Senator John Edwards (North

Carolina), Congressman Richard Gephardt (Missouri), Senator John Kerry

(Massachusetts), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Senator Joseph

Lieberman (Connecticut) and Reverend Alfred Sharpton.

Inside This Issue:

• Overview of 2004 

Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page 1

• The 2004 Presidential 

Election: An interview 

with Charles Cook . . . . . .page 1

• Campaign Highlight:

Biographies of the 

10 Candidates . . . . . . . .page 8

• Campaign Calendar:

Schedule of Primaries

and Caucuses . . . . . . .page 10

FAST FACTS:

✔ History Shows January 

Front Runner Often Does Not

Win Democratic Nomination 

In only 4 out of 10 election years

did the front runner at this stage 

of the campaign win the

Democratic Party’s nomination,

according to a recent poll analysis

done by the Gallup Organization.

These four were Adlai Stevenson

in 1952, John F. Kennedy in 1960,

Walter Mondale in 1984, and 

Al Gore in 2000. In all other

instances, someone else came

from behind as the primary 

season unfolded.

Election

FOCUS

JANUARY 14, 2004 U.S. Department of State ISSUE 1 • NO 1 

Charles E. Cook, Jr., editor and

publisher of The Cook Report, is a

political analyst for the National

Journal Group, and is regarded as one

of the nation's leading authorities on

U.S. elections and political trends.

Recently, Washington File Staff writer

Darlisa Crawford talked to Cook about

the 2004 presidential election. He 

predicts that the upcoming presidential

race will be a “big-issue” election with

trade, the economy, job growth and the

war in Iraq, dominating the campaign.

Q: What will be the major

issues in the 2004 elections?

A: If I had a choice, if I had to predict

whether President Bush was going to

get reelected or not, and if I had a

choice of knowing either who the

Democratic nominee was going to be

The 2004 Presidential Election:

An Interview with Charles Cook

(continued on page 3)

(continued on page 2)

To receive this newsletter 

via a listserv go to:

 http://www.usembassy.de/mail
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

2 ELECTION FOCUS 2004

The U.S. Department of State is pleased to present its election coverage newsletter, Election Focus 2004. The 

newsletter will provide non-partisan coverage of the U.S. election process, featuring articles, interviews, public opinion

polls, and other information on the presidential primaries, debates, conventions and campaign activities of the major 

presidential candidates.

Election Focus 2004 is produced by the Democracy and Human Rights team in the Bureau of International Information

Programs.

In recent elections, presidential

candidates have begun their campaigns

more than a year before the first caucuses and primaries. The media, public

opinion polls and fundraising test a

candidate’s popularity long before any

votes are cast. Therefore, candidates

must get their message out and attract

new supporters early in the process.

They also need to maintain their

momentum and continue to bring in

funds through the lengthy election

cycle: the primaries, the political conventions and the general campaign. 

Another reason getting off to a

fast start is crucial is the increasingly

early scheduling of primaries and 

caucuses, a phenomenon known as

“front-loading.” Various states, hoping

to play a more decisive role in the

process, have scheduled their primaries and caucuses early in 2004. Other

states—Colorado, Kansas, Utah and

Washington—have reacted to this

front-loading of the campaign calendar

by canceling their primaries altogether

in the belief that a late primary will

have little impact on the outcome, and

choosing instead to save the millions

of dollars required to stage an election.

Results from the primaries and 

caucuses gradually lessen the number

of candidates, as some contenders

drop out, and determine how many 

delegates will be pledged to each candidate. The delegates come together at

their parties’ national convention, held

during the summer, where a final

selection is made for the presidential

and vice presidential nominee, and

their policy positions, or “platforms.”

The Democratic National Convention

will take place July 26th – 29th in

Boston, Massachusetts. The

Republican National Convention will

take place in New York City from

August 30th – September 2nd, the 

latest a Republican national convention has ever been held. 

The financing of campaigns

remains an issue of great attention 

and controversy. The McCain-Feingold

Law, recently upheld by the U.S.

Supreme Court, places some restrictions on how money for political

campaigns can be raised and spent.

Despite these limitations, however,

candidates and parties will spend

many hundreds of millions of dollars

on television and radio advertising,

direct voter outreach and so-called

“issue ads” promoting political positions on specific issues without

endorsing a candidate by name. The

federal government also provides

funding to help national candidates

finance the campaigns for their 

parties’ nominations, but several 

candidates, including President Bush

and Howard Dean, the current

Democratic front runner, have opted

out of this system, believing they can

raise more funds by themselves. This

decision will free all three candidates

from a $45 million spending limit,

which is imposed on any candidate

who receives such public funding. All

three candidates believe they can raise

larger amounts than $18.8 million in

public subsidies through the nominating conventions for their campaign.

At the general election on

November 2 voters across the country

cast their votes for president. But a

nationwide popular vote does not

determine the winner. In actuality, 

voters have selected a slate of 

“electors” to the Electoral College, 

a system written into the U.S.

Constitution by the Founding Fathers.

In all states except Maine and

Nebraska, the party that wins the 

popular vote commits all of its electors—each state is entitled to as many

electors as it has U.S. senators and

representatives in Congress—to the

winning candidate.

On December 13, 2004 the electors will meet and vote for president

and vice president. The two-party

electoral system of Democrats and

Republicans requires an absolute

majority of the 50 states or 270 electoral votes, since there are 538 total

electoral votes. The votes are certified

by state authorities and sent to

Washington, D.C. where on January 6,

2005, the votes will be counted by the

president of the Senate, with the full

Senate and House of Representatives

in attendance. At that time, the candidate officially becomes the winner and

president-elect.

The inauguration of the new 

president takes place at noon on

January 20, 2005, ending an election

process that began nearly two years

before. ■

(continued from page 1)

— BUREAU OF —

INTERNATIONAL 

INFORMATION

PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

WWW.USEMBASSY.DE/USA 3

or how the war in Iraq is doing in the

three or four months leading into the

election, I’d rather know how the war

is doing. I think that’s more relevant.

If I had a choice of knowing who

the Democratic nominee was going 

to be or what the economy is looking

like in 2004, particularly in the second

quarter of 2004—because we know

from history that it’s the second 

quarter economic statistics that are the

best predictors of how an incumbent

president is going to do—I would

rather know that, not just what’s the

gross domestic product growth rate,

but also what’s the unemployment rate,

what’s the employment number, and

how does that number compare to

January 2001, and what’s the degree of

under-employment of people that have

lesser jobs today than two or three or

four years ago? I’d like to know that.

And it’s not to say that who the

Democrats nominate isn’t important,

because it is, but overwhelmingly we

know that when an incumbent president is up for reelection, it’s basically

a referendum on the incumbent more

than it is a comparison between two

candidates. It’s “do you believe that

this incumbent has performed well

enough to deserve reelection; do you

have confidence in that incumbent

leading us for the next four years?”

And the answers are “yes,” “no”

and “maybe.” If the answer is yes,

then the voters do believe that the

president deserves reelection and they

do have confidence in the president to

lead us for the next four years, and

then it really doesn’t matter who the

opponent is.

And conversely, if people have

lost confidence in a president, if they

don’t believe he deserves reelection,

they don’t have confidence in him to

lead us for the next four years, then 

it almost doesn’t matter who the opponent is, either. Any Democrat would

have a plausible chance of winning 

the Democratic nomination, and would

be perfectly capable of winning.

It’s only if it’s in that narrow

“maybe” zone, where the voters are

not sure if a president deserves 

reelection; they’re not sure they have

confidence in the president for the

next four years, and only then is the

identity and the caliber of the opponent really relevant.

I tend to think that that “maybe”

zone in the middle may be where

we’re headed, because I think it’s

unlikely that the situation in Iraq will

be significantly better. I don’t think 

it’s going to be resolved by then. The

overall economy may or may not be

better, but is the job situation going to

be significantly better by then? We

don’t know that.

Q: How will the Democratic

candidates discuss and/or

criticize the administration’s

policy on Iraq after the 

capture of Saddam?

A: I think this creates a period of time

of a month or so where it’s going to be

awkward for Democrats to attack the

president. But I also suspect it’s only

going to be weeks or a month—not all

the way to the election—because these

situations tend to have what we call a

“short shelf life,” where they don’t last

very long and tend to be overtaken by

events.

It also depends on who the

Democratic candidate is.

Obviously, if you’re Howard Dean

and oppose the war completely, your

attacks are of one nature.

If you’re Joe Lieberman, and were

fully supportive of the war, enthusiastic about the war, but have differences

with how the president has conducted

it, that’s very different.

And John Kerry and Dick

Gephardt are yet different again.

So, it depends on who the

Democratic candidate is.

I think what you’ll probably see 

is more Democrats saying that it’s

great that Saddam Hussein has been

captured and brought to justice, and

this is a good thing, but that we 

probably should have waited for

greater, more widespread international

participation, that we shouldn’t have

been in such a hurry, and that the

whole second phase of the war should

have been planned better.

Q: How will Dean maintain

his lead as the Democratic

front runner?

A: I think everything comes down to

January 19th when the Iowa caucus

takes place. If Governor Dean wins in

Iowa, if he beats Congressman Dick

Gephardt—and they are—right now as

we say, neck and neck in the polls—

absolutely tied—then if Governor Dean

wins Iowa, I think there’s probably a 90

percent chance that he’ll win the nomination. He’ll have so much momentum

and his trajectory will be so high that

he could win New Hampshire by an

enormous margin, and then he would

be very difficult to beat even on

(continued from page 1)

The 2004 Presidential 

Election: An Interview 

with Charles Cook
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

4 ELECTION FOCUS 2004

February 3rd when you have the third

round of events, which is primaries and

caucuses in South Carolina, Arizona,

New Mexico, Michigan, Oklahoma,

North Dakota, and Delaware.

If Dean were to lose to Gephardt

in Iowa, I think that, at that point, 

his chances of getting the nomination

would drop down to maybe 60 percent. He could still go on to win in

New Hampshire, because he has such

a huge lead there, but his momentum

would be slow enough and his trajectory low enough where the chances of

Gephardt or former General Wesley

Clark or John Edwards from North

Carolina, or maybe even John Kerry

of Massachusetts, could catch him on

or after February 3rd.

But I really think that the defining

event will be the Iowa caucus, that

will sort of tell us whether Dean is

likely to roll on and win the nomination or whether he’s going to have a

tough fight ahead.

Q: Senator Lieberman and

General Clark have chosen

not to participate in the 

Iowa caucuses. How will 

this decision affect their

respective campaigns?

A: Senator Lieberman and General

Clark decided not to compete in Iowa

because they realized that they just had

absolutely no chance of winning, in fact,

not much of a chance of even coming in

second, third or even fourth place; and

so they decided, rather than fight and

spend a lot of money and lose, that they

would hold their resources back and

compete more aggressively in New

Hampshire or in the February 3rd primaries. I think it’s bad for a campaign

to be in a position where they feel like

they have to pull out of Iowa and not

compete, but under the circumstances, I

think their assessment was exactly right.

They weren’t going to do well.

So does forfeiting Iowa hurt their

credibility? Yes. But since they weren’t

going to win it, they are probably 

better off taking that money they

would have spent in Iowa and trying to

improve their chances of winning in

New Hampshire or South Carolina or

some of the other February 3rd states.

Q: Senator John Kerry, 

former Governor Howard

Dean, and President Bush

have rejected public 

financing. How will this 

decision affect their 

respective strategies?

A: I don’t think voters understand

public financing, matching funds, and

I don’t think they really care.

In terms of affecting the candidates’

strategies, it just gives them greater

flexibility, that, under the law, if you

accept the matching funds, there’s a

limit to how much money you can

spend in each individual state, an 

individual spending limit. 

And so now, if they’re in a tough

fight in one state or another state, they

can spend as much as they want, which

is a flexibility that’s very, very important, and that helps them a great deal. 

So it’s not just a matter of being

able to spend more money total, it’s

being able to spend more money in

places where you need to spend it the

most, and not be hampered.

For example, if Kerry needs to

spend all the money in the world in

New Hampshire, but not spend as

much money in Iowa, he can do that.

He’s got that flexibility that he would

not have had had he abided by 

matching funds.

Q: Dean won the 

endorsement of Elijah

Cummings of Maryland, 

the chairman of the

Congressional Black

Caucus, and former Vice

President Al Gore, as well 

as a dozen state and local 

lawmakers in Georgia. 

Will this position Dean as

the “favorite candidate” for

the African American 

community? 

A: I think Governor Dean has made 

a big deal out of some of these

endorsements, but I think he’s done

that because he doesn’t have real

strong support on the grassroots level

in the African American community,

and so he’s trying to kind of leverage

support among some of the leaders

into grassroots support.

The polling I’ve seen in places

like South Carolina, for example, the

African American vote is absolutely

wide open. I mean, it is absolutely up

for grabs. Dean is getting very little of

it now. If he wins Iowa, if he wins

New Hampshire, he’ll probably get a

very healthy share.

I think the most important

endorsement was when South Carolina

Congressman Jim Clyburn, who is

African American, and is, arguably,

the most influential Democrat in the

state, endorsed Dick Gephardt. I’d

rather have Jim Clyburn’s endorsement

than Al Gore’s, because Howard Dean

was doing so well that I’m not sure

any endorsement would help him
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

WWW.USEMBASSY.DE/USA 5

enormously. Conversely, had anyone

else won the Gore endorsement, it

would mean a lot more to them,

because they all needed a break.

So, in terms of translating into

votes, I would rather have Jim

Clyburn’s support, because I think

South Carolina is going to be a critical

primary, and I think he would probably

have more sway among voters in

South Carolina, particularly African

American voters in South Carolina

than Al Gore would have nationally.

Q: Do you think Gore’s

endorsement of Dean

increases his base of 

support in the South?

A: I think Governor Dean is now trying

to create a beachhead in the South, and

he’s trying to do it with endorsements

from key leaders, but he hasn’t been

endorsed by that many significant figures in either the white or African

American communities in the South.

Q: How will the Supreme

Court decision to ban soft

money and restrict some 

TV and radio issue ads 

influence the campaign

strategies of the candidates?

A: In the primary, it’s not going to

make much of a difference in the fight

for the Democratic nomination.

In the general election, what it

means is that a lot of the money that

the national parties would be spending

on behalf of the presidential campaigns,

instead will be spent by other independent groups who will be cropping

up on both the Republican and

Democratic sides, and who will raise

and spend much of the soft money that

was being raised and spent by the

national parties.

So to be honest, I don’t think the

new law will end the influence of big

money. It will just rechannel it away

from the parties and more into these

new independent groups.

Q: What role will the Internet

play in the 2004 election?

A: The Internet is a very, very useful

tool. So is the telephone. So is the 

fax machine. So is the photocopy

machine and the printing press. It’s 

an instrument.

Some campaigns are in a position

to use the Internet more effectively

than others.

For example, Howard Dean’s 

campaign has used the Internet very

effectively, both in terms of being able

to raise money from non-traditional

campaign donors, and as an organizational tool.

In some cases people who have

never given to a political candidate

before are simply going on the Internet

and going on Dean’s website and 

contributing money using a credit card

right over the Internet.

In other cases, it’s an organizational tool—helping people communicate

with other people and to organize 

rallies and events for Dean, to organize groups of supporters, either in a

geographic area or with a common

interest to support Governor Dean. 

So he’s used it extremely effectively.

I also think, though, that the kind

of supporters that Howard Dean usually has are younger, a little bit more

affluent, tend to be more open to technology. His appeal is uniquely suited

towards the Internet. Another candidate,

“I think it’s going to be 

a big-issue election, not a

small-issue election.

When the economy 

is good and when there is 

no war, then issues like

abortion or gay rights or the

environment, some of these

other kinds of issues have

an opportunity to kind of 

percolate, to come up to the

top, and to dominate.

But when you’ve got 

big issues like war and

peace, prosperity or 

economic turmoil, then 

those issues are going to

dominate over anything

else.”

— Charles E. Cook, Jr., editor and

publisher of The Cook Report
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

6 ELECTION FOCUS 2004

like Dick Gephardt, could have just as

good a website and pour just as much

money into using the Internet as

Howard Dean has, but it wouldn’t do

nearly as well, because his membership tends to be older, they tend to be

a little bit less affluent, they tend to be

more unionized, and they’re a lot less

wired to the Internet than, say, Dean’s

pool of potential supporters.

Q: How will the role of 

private contributors such as

Soros’s commitment to voter

funds influence the outcome

of the 2004 election?

A: I think President Bush is going to

raise and spend far more money than

the Democratic nominee will, and I

think it’s safe to say that the Republican

National Committee will raise and spend

considerably more than the Democratic

National Committee will spend.

But having said that, I think

there’s going to be more money raised

outside of the two campaigns and 

outside of the two major national party

committees.

I think there will be more money

raised on the left, on the liberal, labor,

pro-Democratic side, than there will

be on the business, conservative, 

pro-Republican side once you take out

the two candidates, the two national

committees.

I think there’s going to be more

money on the left than on the right,

and that it will partially, not entirely

but partially, offset the Republican

spending advantage that otherwise is

going to be taking place. I think it’s

going to make the fight a little bit more

evenly split between the two sides.

Q: If Ralph Nader decides to

run for the 2004 presidency

on the Green Party ticket,

how will that decision affect

the other candidates?

A: If the election is very close, any

other candidate on the ballot even 

getting a relatively small number of

votes can make the difference.

The question is, is the election

going to be close enough so that

Nader could make a difference if he

decides to run?

I tend to think that Nader will get

even fewer votes in 2004 than he did

in 2000, just as I think if there is a

conservative third-party candidate 

running, they will probably get even

fewer votes than Pat Buchanan did 

in 2000.

And I think the reason for that 

is that because the last election was 

so close, I think there’s going to be 

a reluctance on the part of voters on 

the liberal or the conservative side to

“throw away” their vote for someone

else.

If I were a liberal living in Florida

and I had voted for Ralph Nader, I

would probably have regretted that

vote every single day since the 2000

election; and conversely, if Al Gore

had won Florida and the election by

537 votes, and if I were a conservative

who had voted for Pat Buchanan in

Florida, I probably would have regretted that vote every single day, too,

because I would have seen that there

was an enormous difference between

Gore and Bush and that, voting for a

third candidate hurt the cause.

So I would say there’s going to 

be a lower third party vote in 2004

than there was in 2000, and it just

depends on how close the election is

as to whether it’s enough to make a

difference.

Q: Dean secured the

endorsement from two 

politically powerful labor

unions, the American

Federation of State, County,

and Municipal Employees

and the Service Employees

International Union. How

critical is the role of labor

unions in the upcoming 

election, and are there

particular states that are

more labor union intensive

in terms of voting?

A: Within the Republican Party, labor

is of minimal influence. But on the

Democratic side, labor does have a

great deal of influence. But there’s an

enormous split this year within the

world of labor. The unions that have

traditionally hired manufacturing

workers, for instance, have largely

backed Gephardt, while unions of public employees, government employees

and of service employee workers have

gone more with Howard Dean.

And it comes down to trade. The

unions that care about trade are almost

all backing Gephardt and the unions

for which trade is of no consequence

whatsoever tend to be backing Dean.

It’s what we call “white collar” 

or government employee and public

sector and service employee unions 

on the one side versus “blue collar”

manufacturing-oriented jobs, going

with Gephardt.

Now, which states?

Iowa is a key state with unions.

The Michigan caucus which is coming
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

HTTP://USINFO.STATE.GOV 7

up on February 7th is a huge state with

industrial unions playing a large part.

Q: How will General Wesley

Clark’s extensive military

and foreign policy 

experience pose a threat 

to the other Democratic 

candidates? 

General Clark’s background is

obviously a huge advantage in a key

area. It gives him a level of credibility

and authority that no other Democrat

has. However, it’s offset by the fact

that he’s not as experienced in politics.

If Dean were to win the nomination, I think the chances are very

strong that he would pick General

Clark, because Clark’s strength is

Howard Dean’s weakness, and I think

they would complement each other a

great deal. In fact, I have a hard time

seeing how Dean would pick anyone

other than Wesley Clark.

Clark may or may not be the best

running mate for other candidates, but

I think he would be a much bigger

asset for Dean than anyone else.

Q: Do you want to add 

any other comments or

reflections?

A: I think it’s going to be a big-issue

election, not a small-issue election.

When the economy is good and

when there is no war, then issues like

abortion or gay rights or the environment, some of these other kinds of

issues have an opportunity to kind of

percolate, to come up to the top, and

to dominate.

But when you’ve got big issues

like war and peace, prosperity or economic turmoil, then those issues are

going to dominate over anything else.

The other thing I would suggest is

that I have not seen trade as a major

campaign issue since the Democratic

presidential primaries in 1988, but I

see trade really picking up as an issue

in this election, and it’s because of

some of the structural job losses that

we’ve seen.

There was a study by the Federal

Reserve Bank of New York that was

released back in August, and it looked

at the last four economic downturns. In

the downturns of the mid-’70s, 49 percent of the job losses were what we

call cyclical job losses—temporary job

losses—but when the economy comes

back, those jobs come back, and 51

percent of the job losses were structural, were more permanent job losses.

In the downturn of the early ‘80s,

the percentages were exactly the

same—49 cyclical, 51 structural.

In the downturn of the early ‘90s,

though, the cyclical—the temporary

job loses—dropped down to 43 and

the structural ones went up to 57.

But the current downturn, only 21

percent of the job losses were cyclical;

79 percent were structural.

And we know that it always takes

longer to create brand new jobs than it

does to basically bring people back to

old jobs: it doesn’t take long to add

another shift back at the factory or to

call back salespeople that had been

laid off when sales were down. That

happens pretty quickly.

But when you have to create whole

new jobs, sometimes from entirely new

companies, or from entirely new industries, that takes much, much longer.

So, the jobs issue, I think, is going

to be a very big one in this campaign,

because I think that it will require an

unusually high level of economic

growth to create enough new jobs to

get us back to anywhere near where

we were in January 2001.

And that’s why I think the trade

issue is going to be big, and one thing

that complicates it is that a lot of these

job losses are white collar jobs. In

many cases, they’re knowledge-based

jobs that are going to foreign countries,

and they’re very high-paying jobs.

They’re the jobs that we were training

people to get out of manufacturing and

go into knowledge-based jobs that

would be more permanent jobs, that

would last them for a career, and now

we’re starting to lose many of these.

And that’s why I think the economy is going to continue to be an issue

and jobs will continue to likely be an

issue through this election, much more

so than in other recent elections. ■

The opinions expressed in this article are

those of the interviewee and do not 

necessarily reflect the views or policies of

the U.S. government.
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

8 ELECTION FOCUS 2004

REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT 

George W. Bush

Sworn into office on

January 20, 2001, as

the 43rd president,

George W. Bush is the

second son of a president to also serve in

that office. John

Quincy Adams, son of John Adams,

was first. Bush spent his childhood in

Midland and Houston, Texas, and

received a bachelor’s degree in history

from Yale University in 1968, followed

by an MBA from Harvard Business

School in 1975. Elected governor of

Texas in 1994, Bush was re-elected to

a second four-year term in 1998.

The attacks of September 11,

2001, gave the Bush administration, in

the president’s words, “our mission

and our moment.” Since that time, the

war against terrorism has been the

administration’s highest priority.

Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in

New Haven, Connecticut. He and his

wife, Laura, have two daughters.

DEMOCRATS

(Listed in alphabetical order)

Carol Moseley Braun 

As a U.S. senator

from Illinois from

1993-1999, Carol

Moseley Braun was

the first female

African American to

serve in that capacity.

Moseley Braun graduated from the

University of Illinois with a B.A. in

1969 and the University of Chicago

Law School with a J.D. in 1972. She

also served as President Bill Clinton’s

ambassador to New Zealand from

1999 to 2001. Moseley Braun, a critic

of the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act,

supports expanding health care and

pension protections. In announcing her

candidacy, she said a woman president

could move the nation “toward peace,

prosperity and progress.”

Carol Moseley Braun was born on

August 16, 1947 in Chicago, Illinois.

She is divorced with one child.

Wesley K. Clark 

After graduating from

the U.S. Military

Academy at West

Point with a B.S. in

1966, Wesley K.

Clark went on to

Oxford University in

1968 and earned his M.A. degree.

During his 34 years of distinguished

duty in the U.S. Army, Clark served as

a four-star general, with stints on the

Joint Chiefs of Staff, as commanderin-chief of the U.S. Southern and

European commands and as supreme

commander of NATO. After army

service, Clark became chairman and

CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates

and a military analyst for CNN. He

has been critical of the war with Iraq,

and emphasizes the importance of

building international coalitions to

deal with terrorism. 

Wesley Clark was born on

December 23, 1944 in Chicago,

Illinois. He and his wife, Gert, have

one child.

Howard Dean 

After graduating from

Yale University with a

B.S. in 1971, Howard

Dean received an

M.D. from the Albert

Einstein College of

Medicine in New York

in 1978. Before turning to politics, he

shared a medical practice with his wife.

Dean was first elected governor of

Vermont in 1992, after serving the

remaining term of his deceased predecessor. He was re-elected to four

consecutive two-year terms, opting not

to run in 2002, in order to pursue the

presidency. Dean was the first

Democrat to oppose the congressional

resolution authorizing military 

action against Iraq. Recognized as 

the Democratic front runner, Dean 

emphasizes new spending that emphasizes health and education, paired 

with a repeal of the 2001 tax cuts 

and a balanced budget.

Dean was born on November 17,

1948, in New York, New York. He and

his wife, Judith, have two children.

John R. Edwards

U.S. Senator John R.

Edwards was elected

from North Carolina

in 1998. Before that,

he was a practicing

attorney. Edwards

graduated from North

Carolina State University with a B.S. in

1974 and from the University of North

Carolina with a J.D. in 1977. Senator

Edwards opposed the 2001 tax cuts and

supported normalizing trade relations

with China and “fast track” trade

authority. Although he voted to authorize President Bush to use military force

The 2004 Presidential Candidates

Campaign★★Highlight
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

HTTP://USINFO.STATE.GOV 9

against Iraq, Edwards proposes a federal agency that focuses on collecting

intelligence about terrorist threats 

within the United States, divorcing the

FBI from that responsibility. 

John Edwards was born on June

10, 1953 in Seneca, South Carolina.

He and his wife, Elizabeth, have three

children.

Richard A. Gephardt 

Congressman Richard

A. “Dick” Gephardt 

is currently serving

his 14th term in the

U.S. House of

Representatives. 

After graduating from

Northwestern University in 1962 with

a B.S. degree, he received a J.D. from

the University of Michigan in 1965.

He served in the Air National Guard

from 1965-1971. Gephardt ran for the

Democratic presidential nomination in

1988, winning the Iowa caucus, but

losing the later primaries. He voted for

the October 2002 congressional resolution giving President Bush authority

to use military force against Iraq.

Richard Gephardt was born on

January 31, 1941 in St. Louis,

Missouri. He and his wife, Jayne, have

three children.

John F. Kerry

U.S. Senator John F.

Kerry has served four

consecutive terms

from Massachusetts,

beginning in 1984. He

graduated from Yale

University with a B.A.

in 1966, and after serving in the U.S.

Navy from 1968-1969, he obtained a

J.D. from Boston College in 1976.

Although he received the Silver and

Bronze Stars, and three Purple Hearts

while serving in Vietnam, Kerry

gained notoriety as a spokesman for

Vietnam Veterans Against the War in

1971. He supported the October 2002

congressional resolution giving

President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, but opposed

funding of missile defense research.

Kerry was born on December 11,

1943 in Denver, Colorado. He has two

children from his first marriage, and

three step-children, with his wife,

Theresa.

Dennis J. Kucinich 

As a member of 

the U.S. House of

Representatives from

Ohio, Dennis J.

Kucinich is currently

serving his fourth term

in Congress. Kucinich

received both a B.A. and an M.A. in

1973 from Case Western Reserve

University. He supported the congressional resolution authorizing President

Bush to use military force against Iraq,

but also wants a Department of Peace

created that would seek “not only to

make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society, but to make war

archaic.” Few political observers think

that Kucinich has a chance of becoming the Democratic nominee in 2004,

but he may appear on the presidential

ballot as the nominee of the Natural

Law Party.

Dennis Kucinich was born on

October 8, 1946 in Cleveland, Ohio.

He is divorced with one child.

Joseph Lieberman 

U.S. Senator Joseph

Lieberman has served

three consecutive 

six-year terms from

Connecticut, beginning in 1988. Prior 

to that he was the Connecticut state

attorney general from 1983-1988. He

received a B.A. degree from Yale

University in 1964 and an L.L.B. from

Yale Law School in 1967. As former

Vice President Al Gore’s running mate 

in the 2000 presidential election,

Lieberman became the first Jewish

nominee for national office on a 

major party ticket. He supported the

October 2002 congressional resolution

giving President Bush authority to use

military force against Iraq.

Lieberman was born on February

24, 1942 in Stamford, Connecticut. 

He and his wife, Hadassah, have four

children.

Alfred C. Sharpton

Alfred C. “Al”

Sharpton is an

ordained Pentecostal

minister. He ran

unsuccessfully for the

New York state senate

in 1978, and also 

lost bids to be U.S. senator from 

New York in 1992 and 1994, as well 

as the mayor of New York City in

1997. As president of the National

Action Network, a civil rights organization, Sharpton disagrees with the

use of military force in Iraq, claiming

the Bush administration’s response to

the attacks on September 11, 2001,

have put citizens’ constitutional rights

in jeopardy. 

Sharpton was born on October 3,

1954, in Brooklyn, New York. He and

his wife, Kathy, have two children. ■
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

JANUARY 19

Iowa 

JANUARY 27

New Hampshire

FEBRUARY 3

Arizona

Delaware

Missouri

Oklahoma

S. Carolina (D)

New Mexico (D)

North Dakota

FEBRUARY 7

Michigan (D)

FEBRUARY 8

Maine (D)

FEBRUARY 10

Tennessee 

Virginia

District of Columbia (R)

FEBRUARY 14

District of Columbia (D)

Nevada (D)

FEBRUARY 17

Wisconsin 

FEBRUARY 24

Utah (D)

Hawaii 

Idaho 

MARCH 2

California 

Connecticut

Georgia 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

New York

Ohio

Rhode Island

Vermont

Washington

Minnesota 

MARCH 9

Florida

Louisiana

Mississippi

Texas

MARCH 13

Kansas (D)

MARCH 16

Illinois 

MARCH 20

Alaska (D)

Wyoming (D)

APRIL 13

Colorado (D)

APRIL 27

Pennsylvania

MAY 4

Indiana

North Carolina

MAY 6-8

Wyoming (R)

MAY 11

Nebraska

West Virginia

MAY 18

Arkansas

Kentucky

Oregon

MAY 25

Idaho

JUNE 1

Alabama

New Mexico

South Dakota 

JUNE 8

Montana

New Jersey

10 ELECTION FOCUS 2004

In the United States primary 

elections and party caucuses are

essential to choosing presidential 

candidates. This calendar lists 

currently scheduled presidential 

primaries and caucuses leading up 

to the national 2004 election. The

Democratic National Convention is

July 26-29 in Boston, Massachusetts.

The Republican National Convention 

is August 30 – September 2 in 

New York City.

A primary is a state-level 

election in which voters choose a

candidate within a political party 

to run against a candidate of other

political parties in a later, general

election. A primary may be either

open—allowing any registered voter

in a state to vote for a candidate to

represent a political party, or

closed—allowing only registered 

voters who belong to a particular

political party to vote for a candidate

from that party. 

A caucus is an informal meeting with candidates and potential

voters in which participants discuss

their preference for a certain candidate, and delegates, pledged to a

particular candidate, are selected to

go to party conventions. In Iowa, 

one of the six U.S. states to hold a

caucus, a candidate must have at

least 15 percent of the vote to send

delegates on to a county convention.

The supporters of candidates who 

do not receive at least 15 percent of

the vote must choose a more viable

candidate or none at all. A caucus 

is the most local form of election

politics, with voters being directly

involved in the process. ■

Calendar of Primaries & Caucuses

Note: Primaries are in blue; Caucuses are in red italic.

PRIMARIES & CAUCUSES