My... what a difference four years makes.
George W. Bush went on television this past weekend for an interview with Tim Russert (search). That same afternoon, Al Gore (search) stood in front of the cameras at the Tennessee Democrats convention doing his best Howard Dean (search) imitation.
First Bush... how'd he do with Russert? OK. Let's face it, the president doesn't always express himself clearly or as smoothly as we would all like.
But I think we all know what he means, and we understand what he's talking about. The problem comes when you're in a mindset to play "gotcha" with him. He gives the "gotcha" players tons to work with.
Then there's Gore. He speaks very well, and somebody — maybe Naomi Wolf (search) — has been telling him to roar like a lion.
So here we have the contrast. Bush doesn't speak well, but — and I underline the following — he does the right thing.
Gore speaks well, and he would have done precisely the wrong thing.
Bush is getting hammered because the reasons he articulated for going to war in Iraq haven't turned out to be precisely true. But who's going to argue that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would have been the prudent thing to do for an American president concerned about his country's security?
Nobody... except Gore and Dean. The former veep is arguing that it was a betrayal of the American people to use 9/11 as a reason for going after Saddam. That is absurd. The terrorist attacks were precisely the reason Saddam ended up in the crosshairs.
So your choice for president — a guy who doesn't speak well and does the right thing or somebody who sounds great but does precisely the wrong thing?
Gore would have left Saddam alone. I ask you... smart or dumb?
That's My Word.
What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at firstname.lastname@example.org. Some of your e-mails will be featured on the air or on our site.
• Looking for previous My Word columns?