Editorial: A tough, yet wise, judgment

Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2002 | 8:47 a.m.

He sure looked like a candidate. Al Gore had raised his profile, criticizing President Bush's policies. The former vice president also had published a new book and was on a media blitz to promote it. Gore even was the guest host last weekend on "Saturday Night Live." But on Sunday he surprised nearly everyone when he decided not to run against George W. Bush in 2004. Gore worried that a rematch of the bitter 2000 election between himself and Bush could distract "from the focus on the future that I think all campaigns have to be about." It wasn't easy for Gore to make that decision, but he was right. It also helps that his gracious departure came early, allowing other Democrats to line up their organizations and raise money to be their party's nominee against Bush, whose campaign warchest will make him a daunting opponent.

Some political strategists believed Gore would have been a weak candidate since he already had lost to Bush. Still others, however, believed he would have been Bush's most formidable opponent: Gore may have lost the 2000 election, but he did receive the most popular votes. The remaining Democratic field may not be well known, evoking memories of the Democrats who ran for the nomination in 1992 and were derided as the "Seven Dwarfs." But it was a little-known governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who captured the nomination and defeated then-President Bush, who had been viewed as unbeatable due to his stratospheric approval ratings because of the Gulf War. Clinton, who stressed his ideas to revive a weak economy, pulled off a political upset by beating the elder Bush. The 1992 race showed that issues do matter and, who knows, maybe 2004 will be a reprise.