"However, she holds a strong advantage that Gore currently does not: she has consistently remained a national figure."
Why is this an advantage? Gore, in recent years, has completely reinvented himself as a leader and a speaker, a point I will get to later. The fact that his image has changed since 2000 is undeniable, as is the fact that it has also faded from the memory of most Americans. Let's be honest: how many Americans do you think were actually paying attention to Gore before he announced that he wasn't running? I'd wager that it ain't many.
Gore has a chance to emerge from the shadows as the rediscovered leader he has become. Granted, he will have to do it quickly, forcefully and very publicly in the first weeks of his campaign and define himself before anyone else has a chance to. But it is a very real possibility that should be considered.
"It would appear that Gore has not been able to recover while Hillary has"
But this ignores that Hillary has been running a full-time off-season political campaign to improve her image for the better part of the last five years, while Gore simply hasn't. He has, instead, focused on the issues that matter to Democrats. Rather than concentrating on some crass image, he has concentrated on what really matters: the issues. And he's been on the right side every time. His recent transformation from a block of wood to a telegenic, fiery speaker, as evidenced by all his speeches since 2002, has turned him into a much more formidable candidate, not a weaker one.
And that's why Hillary's starting to get scared.
"he might even be sinking further"
There is absolutely no evidence for this claim. If anything, people probably don't care about him nearly as much as they did two years ago.
"any Gore run would be extremely difficult right now"
ANY run would be extremely difficult against the Republican party's media machine. Rather than whine about poll numbers, shouldn't we be picking someone who is a fighter, someone who will defend our values on natioanl TV, like Gore has?
Two of those polls showed Gore with an advantage in favorables of three to four percent. Well guess what? Bush won by two. That's all it takes. And it is always, always possible to change numbers when you have three years before election day to campaign.
I find it fascinating that you would bother to take the time to debunk a possible Gore run when you so staunchly believe that it isn't going to happen. I find it fascinating that Kos shares this same sentiment, despite many rumors and indications much to the contrary. I find it fascinating that both Bowers and Kos have insinutated their support of a potential run by Hillary Clinton for the past several months, even if in simple phrases and sleight of word.
Just for fun: it makes a little part of me bemusingly suspicious. Every time Gore does something important, it is largely ignored, and when he is indeed mentioned, the remark that "he isn't running" in 2008 is predominant. It sounds like a talking point designed to kill growing support for his potential run. Hillary knows that Gore would be her biggest threat, and now that there are rumblings coming from his corner of the party...is it possible she's made a few new friends on the block? That would certainly be a bright move on her part. She is, after all, a master of politics, and this certainly isn't too complex for her--I would actually admire something that shrewd. But perhaps I should reach for the aluminum foil.
I have always enjoyed MyDD and have been a daily reader for a long time now. But I think I'm being truthful when I say that this post is a ridiculous reinforcement of Republican talking points.
Both Clinton and Gore will have to overcome the right-wing assaults, but at this point I can't see why a Gore run should be discouraged.
I want a candidate who was right about the major issues of the last 15 years, not someone who is perceived as "more electable." The arguments being advanced here for Clinton and against Gore remind me so much of the arguments advanced on behalf of the "electable" John Kerry in 2004. Let the primaries play out in 2008 and let primary voters vote for the candidate they actually want as President and not the one they are told is most electable. The candidate that emerges from this process is more likely to be the "more electable" one than the one favored in any electability assessment by Chris, Kos or anyone else in 2005.
However, this post assumes that listening to polls is a very important piece of the puzzle when choosing a candidate ... which is just pure bs .... and proven bs at that (ie Kerry.)
I forget who said it, but why don't we all just go home.
We can just let the pollsters and pundits tell us what to do. Oh and then the bloggers can regurgitate what they say for further edification.
Or maybe there is a better way to choose a candidate .... like one who represents the values of the party platform.
It's time to get back to basics. No one is making sure that our voted officials are towing the party line. It's a total free for all and a sure fire way to lose again and again and again.
We just keep showing our opponents how flimsy our values are.
