Four years ago Al Gore won the popular vote and George Bush, after a Supreme Court decision, became president. The new chief executive promised to be a uniter, not divider. So much for that pledge.

It gets worse. Since 2001, the incumbent has been lacking on foreign policy, national security, the economy, safeguarding constitutional rights and maintaining credibility at home and abroad.

In all of these categories, the Post-Gazette believes the United States needs a fresh start and that John Kerry can provide such leadership. A President Kerry will make the country safer because he will not take his eye off Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. A President Kerry will look after the workers of America because he is concerned about both the haves and the have-nots.

George W. Bush's approach to the economy has been to take care of the rich, his political base; give the companies run by his campaign contributors free rein; and tell other Americans that his policies will improve their situation, eventually.

The well-to-do continue to get monster tax cuts and will get more if he is re-elected; the middle class get token savings. The economy has bled jobs during this administration; not enough have been created to outweigh the 1 million that have been lost; the outsourcing of American work overseas has proceeded without discouragement.

Sen. Kerry, as a Democrat and because of his strong labor ties, will certainly be more responsive to Americans' need for work. As president, Mr. Kerry will also be more likely than Mr. Bush to rein in the catastrophic deficit that has raged in the past four years. A Republican-controlled White House and Congress have managed to erase the budget surpluses of the Clinton era, which could have put Social Security and Medicare on sound footing for years to come. Instead, Mr. Bush and his policies have driven the U.S. government trillions of dollars deeper in the hole, all in a few short years.

Voters should reject the notion that the current administration "inherited" a bad economy or was the victim on 9/11 of previous White House policies. The state in which this nation finds itself can be traced to a single misfortune: four years of the Bush administration.

One thing that's clear is the relationship between the American economy and its situation in the world. Look at the price of gasoline, now at the painful threshold of $2 a gallon. Mr. Bush's foreign policy -- making war on Iraq, doing little to seek peace in the Middle East and rattling the nerves of oil-producing countries -- has undoubtedly boosted the cost of gas and fuel oil to all Americans.

A President Kerry would change all that. George Bush sneers at him for his promise to draw other nations into America's decision-making process. At the same time, it is clear that the United States will not gain the help of others in pursuing America's interests if it remains contemptuous of their views on matters of common interest. America has always worked best with allies.

Another key consideration is which candidate would strike the better balance between taking the necessary steps to keep America safe and preserving the sacred ground of America's freedoms. On that and the related question of who would appoint more broad-minded Supreme Court justices, the answer is John Kerry. The re-election of Mr. Bush, and the possible continuation of a Republican Congress, accompanied by a Supreme Court stuffed with Bush appointees, would result in the three branches of government controlled by like-minded people. Say farewell to independence, diversity and the multiplicity of viewpoints in public policy that make America strong.

Fortunately, the Kerry movement is gathering steam. He is stronger in Pennsylvania and gaining with our neighbors in West Virginia, where more voters are coming to believe he is the better choice on jobs, health care and homeland security. Even newspapers that endorsed George W. Bush four years ago have changed their minds in 2004; the Seattle Times and The Oregonian of Portland switched to the Democrat this time, while the Tampa Tribune backed away from Mr. Bush and made no endorsement.

There is no doubt that Americans have gone from a generally happy time in the 1990s to four years of deficit, discord and disappointment. We would pose the same question that President Reagan asked famously in the heat of his own campaign: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

Relatively few, we think, would answer that with "yes." If your answer is "no" or "not sure," then we have a president for you. The Post-Gazette enthusiastically endorses John Kerry. It's definitely time for a fresh start.