<<...Gore is becoming the anti-Clinton. Something tells me he desperately wants to run, and believes he could win, but is putting what he sees as the party's good ahead of his own needs...>>
portage: that seems to be the case -- I saw Gore recently on the Leno show, on Saturday Night Live and on Hardball...He seems to be more 'authentic' then in the past and he's actually quite funny...If he'd only shown us the other side of Al Gore a few years ago, he would be President today...He made a tough and courageous decision and it will be interesting to see who the Democrats select to run against Bush...If I had to bet today, I think Senator John Kerry will get the nomination and give Shrub a real run for his money in '04
__________________________
A Wide-Open Fight
More Democrats Likely to Join Fray
By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 16, 2002; Page A01
Former vice president Al Gore's surprise announcement that he will not run for the White House in 2004 transforms the Democratic nomination contest from a referendum on the last nominee into a wide-open fight for the right to challenge President Bush, party operatives and analysts said last night.
Had Gore run, said veteran California Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, "everything would have pivoted off him as the front-runner, and people would have chosen sides for or against him. Now, all the candidates will be trying to find out exactly who their constituencies are, and the primary voters will be much more in a shopping-around mode."
The expectation is that with Gore gone, even more Democrats will join the quintet of candidates who have been wooing party activists for months. "There are two slots open, not just one," said pollster Mark Mellman, implying that with Gore gone, at least two other contenders can emerge from the early contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina with enough momentum to continue in the race.
Despite Bush's high job-approval numbers at the moment, party officials said the size of the likely field is evidence that Democrats are far from ready to concede the next election. "This is wholly different from 1991, when no one [of the best-known party figures] wanted to step forward to take on the first President Bush," said pollster Geoff Garin. "A lot of attractive Democrats look forward to taking on this president."
Gore's decision was not good news for the White House, where political aides had been openly hoping for a rematch. Despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, he was viewed as a perfect foil for the president. One official commented that Gore "was very defined in his views, and one of those definitions was the fact that he kept changing those views."
According to Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe, one of the new contenders may be Senate Democratic Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.). After lunching with Daschle for two hours on Tuesday, McAuliffe said last night, "I think Daschle will now definitely run."
Ranit Schmelzer, Daschle's spokeswoman, confirmed the meeting and said, "Senator Daschle has been seriously thinking about it, as he has his other options -- running for reelection or retiring."
There is less doubt that Gore's decision opens the door for his 2000 running mate, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), to join the field of contenders. Lieberman had said he would not run if Gore did, but Lieberman has been as active in fundraising and seeking support for the nomination as anyone else in the party. Others who might consider candidacies, according to friends and political allies, are Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), and retired Gen. Wesley Clark.
With the man who has led all the early polls of Democratic voters for the 2004 nomination out of the picture, the odds are scrambled for such announced contenders as Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and for such expected but undeclared possibilities as Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), the former House minority leader.
Ron Klain, a senior strategist in Gore's 2000 campaign, expressed the widely shared view that "none of these candidates has a better claim to Gore's supporters than any other." That's because the former vice president's past constituencies were so diverse, including elected and party officials in the South, and leaders of the African American and Jewish communities, organized labor, big-city mayors and the moderate Democratic Leadership Council.
Polls taken within the past two weeks suggest that with Gore out and Lieberman in, Gephardt becomes the front-runner in Iowa and Kerry is ahead in New Hampshire. Those two states will lead off the delegate voting in January 2004. A national survey of Democrats by The Washington Post in late November found that with Gore's name removed, Lieberman finished first, followed by Daschle, Gephardt, Kerry and civil rights activist Al Sharpton.
But many of those who commented last night cautioned that these surveys reflect name recognition more than potential support. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller (D), for example, said that although "Gephardt is not to be underestimated in Iowa," many party activists in his state "are looking for a new face, maybe Howard Dean," whose numbers barely register in the polls.
Press secretaries for Gephardt and Edwards insisted that Gore's announcement would not affect the timing or substance of their decisions on making the race, with both scheduled to announce after the holidays. An aide to Lieberman said the senator would comment on Gore's decision today, but probably not announce his candidacy until the new year.
Edwards, who faces reelection to a second term in the Senate in 2004, and Kerry, who was just reelected and has announced formation of a presidential exploratory committee, praised Gore's contributions to the party.
So did Dean, who went on to assert in an interview that in Gore's absence, he is "the only candidate who opposed the president's request for congressional authorization of military force against Iraq and the only one advocating universal health insurance. It makes it easier for me to distinguish myself from the field."
A former Clinton White House political strategist, who requested anonymity, said that although it may be impossible to gauge which candidate will ultimately benefit from Gore's withdrawal, "the Democratic Party is helped. The party can now move on.
"Had Gore run, we would have been rehashing events from 1992 [when Clinton and Gore were first elected] on through the disputed finale of the 2000 race and the Florida recount. Now the focus can be on the future."
Researcher Brian Faler contributed to this report.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company |
