WASHINGTON - As would-be rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination scrambled to recruit his former aides and supporters, Al Gore acknowledged yesterday that he might not have been his party's strongest candidate in 2004.
The former vice president said that, "realistically, it might be" that a fresher Democratic face would have a better chance of defeating President Bush.
Gore said he figured he "could fight through that and overcome" voter resistance to his candidacy. But "a rehashing of the past" would have hurt his efforts to focus the campaign on the future, he said at a news conference in Raleigh, N.C.
He added that he was "completely at peace" with his decision, announced Sunday night, not to seek a rematch with Bush.
Meanwhile, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Gore's running mate on the Democratic ticket that came within an eyelash of victory in 2000, said he "probably" would announce his candidacy early next month.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts told reporters that Gore's move would have no effect on his plans. Kerry, who recently formed a presidential campaign committee, said his early efforts to build a national organization were "taking hold."
Gore told reporters that Lieberman had asked for his support, as had Kerry and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Gore said he had made no commitments, and has ruled no candidate in or out, but expects to make an endorsement at a later date.
'Somebody will emerge'
At the White House, where strategists reportedly were eager for another Bush-Gore showdown, the news of his decision to leave presidential politics was greeted derisively by Bush's chief spokesman, Ari Fleischer.
Fleischer said Bush was too busy to express a reaction to Gore's decision, which he described as an internal Democratic Party matter.
"Somebody will emerge from the Democratic field who will ultimately seek to raise taxes on the American people, but that's a decision that the Democrats will make as they select a nominee," the White House spokesman added.
More wide open
Gore's absence is likely to make the race even more wide open and unpredictable, Democratic strategists said. There is no true front-runner at this preliminary phase, though various candidates are thought to have an early advantage in some of the initial delegate contests.
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri is regarded as the early favorite in Iowa, the first delegate test. Kerry has been leading in early polling in New Hampshire, the first primary.
With the Democratic nomination expected to be decided as early as mid-February 2004, the candidate who is able to put together the best-financed campaign is likely to have an advantage in what will amount to a national primary that month.
If there is a loser in the Democratic field as a result of Gore's decision, some Democrats said, it could be Gephardt, who first ran for the White House 14 years ago and who might now turn off those who think Democrats need a new face.
"Now that they don't have Gore to beat up on, they'll probably start beating up on Gephardt," predicted one Democratic strategist.
Gore's decision also opens the door wider for Sen. Tom Daschle, the Senate Minority leader. The South Dakotan is expected to announce next month whether he'll seek the nomination.
Other contenders include Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose outsider candidacy has gained growing respect from other politicians, and the Rev. Al Sharpton, who isn't regarded as a serious contender but whose race-based campaign could complicate matters for other Democrats.
The 'money primary'
With the new year only weeks away, the likely Democratic contenders are about to start what is often called the "money primary." Historically, the candidate who has raised the most money in the year before the primaries has gone on to win the nomination.
Those thought to have the best money-raising potential include Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Daschle.
By removing himself from the competition more than a year in advance of the first primaries and caucuses, Gore has cleared the way for other candidates to sign up contributors who had been staying on the sidelines while he decided what to do.
One close associate said Gore's backers are likely to splinter among the various Democratic candidates because his base of support was not monolithic.
"It won't break in any one direction," predicted Roy Neel, a longtime Gore associate. "You can make a case for each of these guys."
Lieberman might have the strongest claim, not only because of his partnership with Gore in 2000 but because he had said that he would not run in 2004 if Gore did.
"The Gore supporters in the donor community respect the fact that Joe was loyal and deferential," said a Democratic strategist who favors Lieberman.
The strategist contended that Lieberman, the most conservative of the prospective candidates, stands a good chance of gaining support from African-Americans, the party's most loyal voters, who have no natu- ral candidate in 2004.
"Next to Gore, Lieberman is the most aggrieved guy from 2000," he said, referring to the view among some black Democrats that Republicans stole the Florida election - and, by extension, the presidency - by preventing many blacks from voting.
'All kinds of factors'
Most Democrats have made it clear that they want to move beyond the last presidential election - as Gore acknowledged in Raleigh, the most recent stop on his book tour with his wife, Tipper.
The former vice president said "all kinds of factors" -personal and political - went into his decision.
"There wasn't an epiphany," he said, adding that he finally made up his mind Friday morning and called Lesley Stahl of CBS News to offer her the interview.
"I wish I could tell you that right in the middle of the rehearsal of one of those comedy skits [for Saturday Night Live], it just hit me," Gore said, chuckling. "But that's not the way it happened. It was just a slow dawning of what I felt was the right thing to do."