ABC News reports that Mass. Democrat John Kerry will seek the Presidential nomination in 2004:

"Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, a leading Senate liberal and decorated gunboat officer during the Vietnam War, said Sunday he is taking a first step toward running for president in 2004: He took aim at President Bush's policies on taxes, education, Iraq and the Middle East, saying, "There is a better choice for this nation."

"I'm going to file this week an exploratory committee, a formal committee, and I'm going to begin the process of organizing a national campaign," Kerry said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Kerry also said that an official announcement is months away.

Any word from Howard Dean yet?

The LA Times has a special report on Gary Hart's possible re-emergence as a presidential candidate in 2004. Hart Tries to Get Off 'Sidelines' begins with:

"The former Democratic senator from Colorado has emerged from political exile to become the Cassandra of terrorism, issuing bleak predictions about the next attack on American soil."

Hart served on a terror task force in 2001 that issued a report that warned of "even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy." The Times, none too kindly, says "But the report didn't generate enough urgency to suit Hart, so he has been crusading to keep it alive -- appearing on talk shows, giving speeches and writing newspaper editorials."

Hart won't say whether he intends to run. "It's not about politics," he says. "It's about public service. I've tried to find a way to help my country. And I'll continue to do that."

Where has he been the past 15 years since his last run for the democratic presidential nomination?

"Hart says he has tried not to disappear. He has written six books. He has earned a doctorate from Oxford University. He has offered advice to politicians willing to listen. "I gave Bill Clinton all kinds of ideas," he says, "including to intervene in Ireland, which he took and ran with."

He has been practicing international law with a prominent firm in Downtown Denver (we can vouch for this as our office is in the same building and we see him in the lobby and elevator from time to time.)

What does he say about fighting the terror war?

"Aside from governmental vigilance, Hart stresses the need for an alert citizenry. "The tag line of every speech I've given over the last two years on this subject is: 'You in this audience are now front-line soldiers.'

"This war's being fought in our streets and cities. Nobody's going to ride in. The 82d Airborne isn't coming. The 1st Marine Division isn't going to be here. It'll be the Colorado National Guard. The cops on the beat. The fire and emergency management people. We're all going to have to get into this. Now, why can't the president say that?"

About Bush and Iraq:

"He decries Bush's readiness to invade Iraq, saying the nation isn't ready: "It's imprudent and it's folly. The threats to this country are going to skyrocket the minute the first U.S. soldier crosses the Iraqi border."

On the viability of his return to politics:

"When the Denver Post reported last month that Hart was speaking with friends about another run for president, Hart says he was deluged with support. "I've gotten a lot of e-mails," he says, a gleam in his eye. "Not one of them negative."

"But, even some of Hart's greatest admirers see his political resurrection as a remote possibility. Though he has gained new credibility in the war on terrorism, friends say, he would still have trouble shaking questions about character, especially after the scandals that dogged Clinton."

Ok, so we're a little torn here. Gary Hart sounds good on terrorism to us. He has always been quite liberal on domestic issues and has a true zeal for public service. He's an outgrowth of the Eugene McCarthy/ George McGovern days of the Democratic party-- which really were the last days that the party shined.

Gary Hart is more than smart. He's not a centrist. He knows politics inside and out. But the questions remain: Has he been out of the game too long? Will he ever live down the arrogant taunt he made to the media during his escapade with (now anti-porno queen) Donna Rice? Will he seem too Clintonesque?

We're not writing him off. But we're not jumping on his bandwagon yet either. Your thoughts?

We agree with the analysis by Martin Sieff, UPI Senior News Analyst, that Democrats need to turn left to survive.

"Politics is not only the art of the possible, it is also the history of the unanticipated. Therefore for the Democrats even to dream of a comeback, they must do the unexpected, otherwise they will experience the unprecedented. They must tack to the left, and reevaluate the present in the light of their own past. Or else they will crown their relentless, humiliating, sustained eclipse of the past 36 years with a total extinction as complete as that of the 1850s Whigs -- or the Jurassic dinosaurs."

Lisa English over at RuminateThis was impressed with Al Gore's political comments on NPR yesterday. We saw and heard him on Larry King Live last night and had the same reaction as Lisa:

"...what captured my attention most were the comments both Gores had about the Election of 2004 and politics in general. Gore came across as a very human, engaging, brilliant and funny guy. If the race were to be run today, and the candidates leaving the starting blocks were those who've already indicated a desire or semi-interest in running, I've gotta tell you...Gore's looking damn good. He's not sounding like every other lefty politician, and maybe...just maybe...he does have it what it takes. This after all, is the guy who won more votes than any Democratic presidential candidate in US history, not to mention the fact that he beat George Bush by more than half a million popular ballots cast. Like I said...he's looking damn good."

We thought Gorewas surpisingly animated and unrehearsed --he had great comments opposing Bush's foreign policy and economic plans, and most important to us, he sharply rebuked the Bush administration for its civil liberties violations since Sept. 11--down to stating that if the TIA (Total Information Awareness) program were not removed from the Homeland Security Bill, he would have voted down "the whole dern thing."

We gained a whole new respect for Al last night. Now, if he'd only come out for a moratorium on the death penalty, or at least for the Innocence Protection Act, we might be actively supporting him rather than just praising him.

We also liked that he's still friends with Bill and went out of his way to describe their closeness since the 2000 elections. If Al will continue to say what he really thinks instead of what he thinks he is supposed to say, we'd say he's very much still in the ballgame.

The Denver Post reports on today's court hearing in the ballot counting case over the new House seat in Colorado, being fought over by Democrat Mike Feeley and Republican Bob Beauprez. Upshot: Feeley wants all the provisional ballots counted and the Judge may rule Wednesday.

Meanwhile, columnist Mike Littwin has a good synopsis of the ballot issues in the lawsuit:

"It's a two-part problem. You start with provisional ballots. These are ballots for people who, for one reason or another, couldn't use a regular ballot, usually because of a registration mix-up. And these ballots are put aside for later counting, which would be, say, now."

"Then you go to the newly formed 7th District, which is spread over three counties. In two counties - Adams and Arapahoe - they followed the state-advised procedure, which was to ask voters to check a box saying why they needed a provisional ballot."

"In Jefferson County, because it's Jefferson County, they went their own way - offering provisional voters a box-free, check-free ballot. No one knows why."

"Once she saw the discrepancy, Davidson ruled all eligible provisional ballots in check-free Jefferson County would be counted - because the voter shouldn't be penalized for the county's mistake. And she ruled that some unchecked ballots in Adams and Arapahoe would be discarded, because an unchecked ballot meant it was the voter's mistake."

"You can see the problem. So, it turns out, could the lawyers. Unlike Florida, this is not a recount. The provisional votes haven't been counted at all. Feeley is trying to get the rules straight before this turns into Florida. And he's trying to get it straight because he's 386 votes behind."

Daily Kos lists the pros and cons of each of the known Democratic contenders for the 2004 presidential race, and ranks them.

Votelaw has all the current news on the lawsuit brought by the Colorado Democratic party over the counting of ballots in the congressional race between Democrat Mike Feeley and Republican Bob Beauprez. The election is for a seat in the newly created 7th Judicial district in Colorado.

Ed of Votelaw also reports "The Washington Post headline, In Denver Recount, Reaching for a Precedent, incorrectly describes this as a "recount," when it is actually a first count of the provisional ballots. Provisional ballots are those cast by people who are not on the voter list in the precinct. They may cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted only when it is shown that they are eligible."

Feeley says different standards are being used to determine the validity of the provisional ballots in the various counties that make up the new 7th District. The election results were due out today but they will be delayed due to the lawsuit. A court hearing is scheduled for 1:30 pm this afternoon.

Walter in Denver, a dedicated libertarian, picks up on our post about Ashcroft's new drug and gun prosecution policies and says:

"There's been much debate lately ... about the Libertarian Party's effect on Republican election results in the past election. The assumption made by some is that LP votes would go to the GOP if there were no LP candidate on the ballot. That may be true in some rare cases, including the South Dakota senate race, but LP voters that I know, and I know lots, made a careful and reasoned decision when they left the GOP. That's assuming they ever were with the Republicans, many were Democrats or split ticket voters before they saw the light. Most of us are painfully aware that voting GOP is voting for stuff like this: (found at TalkLeft) ....This sort of thing (and many other reasons) is why LP members take delight in voting against Republicans, and even try to spoil Republican results. As long as partisan Republicans are blind to this there will be no winning over LP voters."

"A Los Angeles Times Poll shows that nearly half of party insiders believe former Vice President Al Gore should sit out the 2004 race. The poll, which surveyed roughly three-quarters of the membership of the Democratic National Committee, suggests that the contest is wide open and that there is a hunger for change. While 35% of respondents said Gore should run again, 48% said he should not and 17% were undecided."

"The poll turned up significant backing for Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry and surprising support for Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, the Democrats' leader in the House since 1989, did not fare as well as Kerry or a second national newcomer, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards."

You can read excerpts of the poll finding here. (free LA Times registration required).

Al Gore will decide whether to run for president by the end of the year.

Interviewed by Barbara Walters last night, he said he wouldn't rule out any potential running mates including Lieberman or Hillary.

Liberal Oasis has much, more more on a potential Gore candidacy.

The Washington Post reports today that Democrats are ready to leave the centrism of the Clinton days behind them and take a turn to the left.

"A decade after Bill Clinton pushed his party toward the center of American politics, inspiring a vibrant movement of "New Democrat" followers in Congress, a liberal resurgence is sweeping the party, threatening to brush centrists to the side. There's little doubt that on issues of trade, gun control and tax cuts, House Democrats are about to take a left turn."

Al Gore, Howard Dean and Bob Kerry are said to be going along for the ride. The lack of support for Frost and Ford in their bids for the House leadership post "shows the strong grip liberals have on the party, especially at the congressional level."

Tom Daschle, described as "left of center" (news to us) in the article, was re-elected as minority leader yesterday.

Political Wire noted yesterday that Gary Hart has not excluded himself from the 2004 presidential race. It seems newspapers have interpreted his remarks differently.

Here are Hart's comments on FoxWire this past Sunday in response to an inquiry by Host Rita Cosby (Available on Lexis ):

"COSBY: And Senator Hart himself was in the news earlier this week, when one newspaper reported that he was considering running for president in 2004. And one report said that he was not.

Well, I asked him about the two reports, and this is what he had to say.

HART: I think both reports are wrong.

COSBY: The press is wrong? Wait a minute.

HART: Well, the contradictory reports are wrong. I think it's much too early for anyone, particularly including myself, to be talking about presidential races.

I think the voters have, frankly, had enough with the recent election and all the negative campaigning, and all the money that was spent.

So, let's put all that off at least till next year.

COSBY: But does that mean that you would consider running again? That you're not excluding it?

HART: It doesn't - no, it doesn't mean anything. It just means, let's discuss the issues that are on people's minds."

The day before, November 8, Hart answered the question during a national security lecture to college students in Boulder, Colorado, this way: "I don't want to run for office, but I want to make a contribution," he said during a lecture on national security to University of Colorado students.

"I don't have any great need to be in public office, but I don't want to sit on the sidelines either," said Hart"

Some, like the Associated Press, reported "Former Democratic Sen. Gary Hart, whose 1988 presidential campaign was derailed in a sex scandal, has ruled out another run for the White House in 2004," while others took only as meaning he wasn't excluding himself. Seems the latter view is correct. (AP article available on Lexis.)

And on a war with Iraq, Hart is critical of plans to invade Iraq. Here's another q and a session from the same interview with Rita Cosby:

"And in the op-ed you said, "War in Iraq should be initiated only when the United States is fully prepared to deal with the potential serious domestic consequences of undertaking that war."

What do you see as the potential domestic consequences? And do you think we are ready? Are we prepared to go to war?

HART: Well, of course we're not. And the Council on Foreign Relations task force, which issued its report about 10 days to two weeks ago, said this nation is not much better prepared a year after the first attack than we were then.

So we are not prepared for the inevitable retaliatory attacks on this country that will occur when we invade Iraq. It is not possible, it is almost inevitable.

And so, any prudent commander-in-chief or president would not commit forces to Iraq until this country is fully prepared to deal with the consequences of that attack. And I think they will be consequential. "