NTARIO, Calif., July 26 — Myra Clay went to the bank here this week and moved her retirement savings from the stock market into a fixed annuity. An unemployed quality assurance inspector, she says she worries about her future and the nation's. She is infuriated at Wall Street corporate executives and the politicians she says have protected them.
In short, Ms. Clay is precisely the kind of voter Democratic leaders say could deliver the party control of Congress in November and the White House in 2004.
Except for one thing. As angry as Ms. Clay is — she says the profiteering on Wall Street will be the first thing on her mind when she votes this November — she says she does not think Democrats will be any tougher than Republicans in confronting corporate abuses. Ms. Clay, a Democrat, said that although Republicans might be more inclined to hoist the corporate banner, both parties were too financially indebted to Wall Street to do much about it, no matter what Democrats in Washington are saying these days.
"I don't think either one of them is better," Ms. Clay said on the steps of the public library here in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. "And the corporate contributions have a heck of a lot to do with it."
Ms. Clay is hardly alone. In a series of interviews over two days in this sprawling community of 160,000 people about 30 miles east of the Los Angeles County line — the kind of growing, middle-class and blue-collar exurb that often decides elections these days — voter after voter expressed distress at what was taking place a nation away on Wall Street.
But voter after voter said that when it came to curbing abuses in corporate boardrooms, it made no difference which party was in power.
The resignation and exasperation they voiced suggested how difficult a task the Democrats face as they seek to turn the fall elections into a referendum on one dominant issue.
"It has nothing to do with party lines, it has to do with the almighty dollar," said Sue Bonetti, a retired teacher whose husband is four years away from what suddenly looks as if it could be an uneasy retirement. "What are they going to do — cut the belt that feeds them?"
Ruby Stewart, 41, a corrections officer who was with her four daughters at the Ontario Mills mall here today, laughed when asked if it mattered which party controlled the White House and Congress.
"With who they have running?" Ms. Stewart said. "I think it would be wet and wet, to tell you the truth: no difference, no difference whatsoever. Wet and wet. You don't have anybody up there who is going to look out for the interests of the public. They are only interested in themselves."
Remarks like hers suggest that the activity on Wall Street and the frenzy in Washington to respond to it have reinforced the cynicism about politicians that Ross Perot tapped when he ran for president in 1992.
The anger and indignation were palpable and personal. More than a few people said they had watched their retirement accounts tumble with the stock market. But many added that this issue would not prompt them to vote for one party over the other. In fact, they said, they might not vote at all.
Bruce Lee, 52, a writer who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, said it was "completely irrelevant" who was in charge. "The overwhelming majority of both political parties sold out 20 years ago," Mr. Lee said. "There may be some question as to who bought them, but they have been bought."
Bob Ferguson, 75, a retired plastering contractor, echoed that point with a comment made only partly in jest. "When you buy a Republican, he stays bought," Mr. Ferguson said. "That's the difference between the two parties."
Beyond that, the interviews here reflected the conflicting opinions Americans have of their president today. Voters from both parties expressed concern about President Bush's close identification with corporate interests, and his handling of the economy. Yet almost without exception, they applauded his handling of the war on terrorism, conveying admiration for the president during this difficult time.
"When can you think of a time that a guy has been beset with more problems?" Mr. Ferguson said. "All you can do is play the hand that's dealt you, and I think he's done a good job playing a bad hand."
Mr. Ferguson, a Republican, voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, but even Charlotte Smith, 45, a Democrat who voted against him, seemed open to the idea of voting for him in 2004. "He's actually doing better than I thought he would," Ms. Smith said.
Conversely, the views offered about Al Gore, who handily defeated Mr. Bush in this state four years ago and must do so again in 2004 if he hopes to win the White House, were hardly favorable, even among Democrats. Several people expressed annoyance that Mr. Gore had kept such a low profile for so long after the Sept. 11 attacks, and some said he had relinquished any claim to be the head of the opposition or his party's leading candidate for 2004.
"I used to think Gore but I'm not sure now," said William Lopez, 50, a Democrat and an elementary school teacher, who was wearing a Bruce Springsteen T-shirt. "Maybe because after the election, he stood away — he kept away. He kept away too long. I know he was trying to be a gracious loser, but at the same time, maybe he could have took a stronger stand on everything."
Ms. Clay, the quality assurance inspector, said she had voted for Mr. Gore in 2000 but would be inclined to vote for Mr. Bush in a rematch. "Gore gave up on me," she said. "When he lost the election, he just kind of faded in the bushes. He's weak."
The responses on the subject of Wall Street were noteworthy because they came as the Democratic Party was maneuvering to hold the Republican Party responsible for corporate abuses. Democratic strategists who just weeks ago were gloomy about their November prospects say the corporate issue is a way to nationalize the election, in effect, giving dozens of Democratic congressional candidates a single issue to use against the Republicans.
There was, in fact, a sentiment voiced by the people interviewed that Republicans in general — and the president in particular — had deep ties with corporate interests, evidenced by financial contributions to the party and the number of former corporate executives in the Bush administration. "He's too associated with corporate America, oil companies," said Jerome Rinkus, a Russian language teacher. "His vice president as well."
Yet many voters suggested that business ties were not necessarily a bad thing. Many also said such connections were counterbalanced by what the Democrats have been doing in Washington. "Both are involved in taking corporate monies," said Tom Alpert, a pilot for Northwest Airlines. "And I think that if you look at the House and the Senate in either party, you're going to find that neither party is totally pure."
But in a changing political climate affected so much by international turmoil, no one was prepared to say that what was happening today would matter much in November — much less two years from now.
"Today it's very important," said John Eubank, 65, a retired network computer engineer. "Something else might come forward in the next two years. And who will remember?"