Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

Watching “Saturday Night Live” last night, where Al Gore revealed his

much lauded, yet mostly hidden, comic side, I turned to my new husband

and said, “I’ve got a feeling he’s not going to run.”  Of course,

I was talking about Mr. Gore making yet another run for the presidency. 

Well, today we learn the media won’t have Al Gore to kick around any longer…

at least for the 2004 election cycle.

Speculation today is running rampant (and ad nauseam) about how and

why the former vice president came to his decision.  That’s very uninteresting

to me, but obviously the 24-hour cable news channels have to provide speculation,

because, after all, that’s their business.  The bottom line is, I

believe (and here I go speculating—it’s irresistible), is that Mr. Gore

has lost the fire for the fight.  Period.

Having campaigned for Al Gore in 2000, I was a member of the “activist

base” of the Democratic party who was behind him wholeheartedly, if

he had chosen to run in 2004.  Mr. Gore garnered over 500,000 more

popular votes than did our accidental president, which are more votes than

any Democratic candidate in history.  Having the Supreme Court select

the president of the United States, I believed Mr. Gore deserved the right

to run if he so chose.  But that is not to be in 2004, and time will

tell if the political wind will ever blow his way again.  Remember

Richard M. Nixon, who sat out the 1964 election, running and winning in

1968?   The rest, as they say, is political history.

So, with Al gone, the field explodes.  Or does it?

I dismiss Dick Gephardt out right.  This Judas cut the Democratic

party’s legs out from under us when he treacherously made a secret deal

with Dubya to back the Iraqi resolution recently passed in Congress, while

Democrats were sleeping.  I will never support this man.

Tom Daschle is a no for reasons that need no explanation, in my opinion. 

But to name a few:  the mid-term debacle of 2002; saying Mr. Lott’s

statement about Strom Thurmond amounted to no big deal—even with Lott’s

life long dream of rehabilitating Jefferson Davis; and lastly, that Senator

Daschle doesn’t have the stature to win.

Senator John Edwards is an attractive candidate, but is not ready for

the formidable Dubya machine just yet, in my opinion.  His solo appearance

on “Meet the Press” this year was embarrassing!  Vice presidential nominee? 

We shall see.

As for Joseph Lieberman, well, picking him as his vice presidential

running mate was the smartest thing Al Gore did in the 2000 election, however,

I just don’t believe the good senator is presidential material.  He’s

very conservative, a definite hawk on Iraq and terrorism, but still lacks

the stature needed to win, I believe.

Then there is Mr. Al Sharpton. Frankly, there is no way in hell he can win and it’s

pure fantasy on his part to believe he can. However, I hope Mr. Sharpton uses his

accumulating power and media might to actually do something for Blacks and inspire minorities

in believing that they do indeed have a voice in American democracy.

The Republicans have done nothing concrete to suggest Blacks are welcomed in their leadership, since there is not one member of the Republican Party that is going to be Black in the

new Congress of 2003. Democrats still need to nominate and elect a qualified Black individual to the Senate.

Then there is the silent giant in the room, which no Democrat dare mentions. That would be Senator Hillary Clinton, who

is a candidate only Republicans could love. Sorry, folks, but nominating Hillary would be a fatal error right now, in my

opinion. If Democrats think burying the past was impossible with Al Gore as our presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton would make it

ten times as difficult to re-imagine and reorganize the Democratic Party. That brings me to the most attractive candidate to consider.

For about one year, I’ve been trading emails with John Kerry’s office,

in a very casual, very low level manner.  However, my interest in

Mr. Kerry has remained significant, as I, along with everyone else, waited

for Mr. Gore’s announcement, which will come on 60 Minutes this evening.

As far as Senator Kerry is concerned, there is good news and bad news.

The good news is that Senator Kerry has the depth, the military expertise

and experience, as well as the money to carry his presidential campaign

all the way to the finish line.  His last visit on “Meet the Press”

was incredibly impressive, substantive, and he was relaxed and at ease

on the air.  This was a relief to witness, especially in comparison

to all the wincing I and many others did whenever Mr. Gore (with all due

respect) was on camera.  (As I’ve written about before, Al

Gore has had a deadly case of stage fright from his youth, which

includes throwing up before delivering speeches.  This fear, which

is evidently very real, has kept him caged, keeping him from selling his product,

which is a death sentence in politics.)

The downside of having Senator Kerry as our nominee is that he is a

Massachusetts liberal, having voted the same as Senator Ted Kennedy most

of the time in the last years, the Iraqi resolution being the exception. 

He was attorney general for Michael Dukakis, and comes from an area of

the country known for liberalism in a time where being labeled a liberal

is considered a dirty word for a Democrat.  He also is muddy on his

Middle East policy and has yet to distinguish himself on anti-terrorism policy. He is also

against the death penalty, except for cases of terrorism (which mirrors my own).

However, Senator Kerry is a strong Democratic candidate that has ample

times: international defense and homeland security.

Senator Kerry received three Purple Hearts,

in the Vietnam War. 

Senator Kerry’s patriotism, courage, and commander in chief credentials

are just what Democrats need to combat this nonsense that we are soft on

defense.  That he also came out against the Vietnam War once he returned

home adds even more credibility to his leadership capabilities.  Senator

Kerry can hold opposing and very complex issues in his mind simultaneously,

making sense and articulating deep subjects with aplomb.

War with Iraq?  Not now, Kerry says: “The United States of America

because we HAVE to go to war.”

Senator Kerry is against the Bush tax cut.  Hallelujah!

There is another recent issue that distinguishes

John Kerry knows and understands America’s deep wounds regarding race.

Senator John Kerry deserves the Democratic Party’s serious consideration

and support for president in 2004.  He has earned this chance and

could represent us with great pride, considerable charm, and has the money

to mount a serious charge at the chicken hawks in Bush’s Washington.

Oh, and Senator Kerry will also be able to debate George W. Bush toe

to toe, without sighing.

This brings me to the general.  That is, General

Wesley Clark, the much

maligned military man, who is evidently thinking of throwing his

hat in the ring for president.  This, I feel, will never happen, but

he should be considered as vice presidential material, or some other cabinet

level post.  Read David Halberstam’s “War in a Time of Peace,” which tells the tragic tale of how General

Clark was undercut by his superiors.  It’s a tremendous

read.

So, it’s a new day for Democrats.

I’m exhilarated and all Democrats should stay tuned for a couple of

things.

Number one, is what happens with the oh, so white Senator Lott. 

which is a more important issue than partisan politics.

Number two, is how fast the Democratic field widens with presidential

hopefuls.

Don’t look now, but the presidential political season of 2004 just began.

Bang… and we’re off.

Senator Kerry, you have the floor.

© Copyright 1995 – 2005 Taylor Marsh

All Rights Reserved