ROBERT A. JORDAN

. . . But He's The Man To Beat, And Kerry's Time Is Not Now

By Robert A. Jordan, Globe Staff, February 28, 1999

US Senator John F. Kerry's decision last week not to challenge Vice President Al Gore for the Democratic nomination may prove to be one of the wisest of the 2000 presidential campaign.

Kerry said he decided not to run because the impeachment proceedings cost him precious time he needed in order to develop an exploratory campaign and raise money.

The decision is a fortunate one. For if Kerry had entered the presidential sweepstakes, it could have been a repeat of another presidential primary that, in the end, proved a difficult chapter in Democratic Party history.

Kerry might have found himself in a position similar to that of fellow Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, when President Jimmy Carter was seeking reelection in 1980. Kennedy and his many supporters saw Carter as vulnerable, if not severely weakened, by what they considered a lackluster first term.

Kennedy's supporters, relying on some polls, viewed him as a sure winner over Carter. They thought Carter would have to pull a "Lazarus" -- that is, rise from the politically dead -- to even have a chance against Kennedy. What they learned was that defeating an incumbent for the nomination was not as easy as it looked.

Carter did, indeed, resurrect himself that year. He had said of Kennedy, "I'll whip his ass" in the primaries, and he delivered on that promise. Unfortunately, the bitterness that developed between the Kennedy and Carter camps -- between the Northern and Southern Democrats -- contributed significantly to Carter's loss to Ronald Reagan in the general election.

While Gore is not the incumbent president, he has many of the advantages of incumbency. He has been a good and loyal vice president during his two terms, and he has the strong support of a still very popular president.

Unless a scandal involving Gore erupts during the campaign, the nomination is his to lose.

So Kerry's decision not to run is good for both Kerry and Gore. How former US Senator Bill Bradley's quest for the Democratic nomination plays out remains to be seen.

If Bradley, Gore's only declared rival at this point, loses to him, it is improbable that he will end up as Gore's running mate in November 2000. If he makes a poor showing against Gore, he may end up with nowhere else to go in elective politics. Kerry, on the other hand, has a better political future in hand.

By not engaging in a bitter primary battle with Gore, Kerry puts himself squarely in the running to be on the ticket with Gore, and maybe to be the next vice president.

If Gore loses the 2000 election -- as he could, if he gets mired in fundraising scandals, an area in which he's already vulnerable -- Kerry's decision not to run will seem even wiser. He, as well as a host of other Democratic cotenders, will have a clear shot at whomever is the Republican incumbent in 2004.

But even if Gore were to win two terms, Kerry, 55, will still be a lot younger eight years from now than Ronald Reagan was when, at 69, he first won the presidency in 1980.

Although the GOP is expected to see several bitter primary battles before its presidential nominee is finally chosen, the Democrats cannot afford to lose any momentum with the electorate between now and the election. They need a non-divisive primary and a unified front in November 2000.

Democrats that year will have an opportunity to maintain their hold on the presidency, recapture the House of Representatives, and to at least close the gap on the 55-45 GOP majority in the Senate. The best way to accomplish these goals is by ensuring a strong and unified backing of the next Democratic nominee -- whether it's Gore, as expected, or a dark horse.

As for Kerry and other ambitious Democrats who have thus far dropped out of the running for next year's primary, they knew it was not their time. It may be another four years before they know whose time it is.