MyDD :: Gore and Hillary

Gore and Hillary

by Chris Bowers, Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:11:10 PM EST

Chris Mathews, March 7, 2005:

The 2008 Presidential campaign will not include Al Gore. I'm reporting tonight that the former Vice President and 2000 Democratic Presidential nominee will not run for President. I've been given this scoop from a perfect source who informed me that the purpose of this disclosure at this time is to end speculation about a campaign that will never occur.

Political Wire, July 31, 2005:

"Close to a zero-percent chance."

-- Al Gore, quoted by Time magazine, on the probability he'll ever run for elective office again.

Al Gore, October 12, 2005:

"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an economic forum in Sweden.(...)

Gore, who now runs a cable TV channel and is the chairman of an investment company, did not completely shut the door to future political endeavors.

"I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that," Gore said.

At the very minimum, anyone who has an appreciably realistic view of politics would see these quotes and agree that Gore is not going to run in 2008. In 2012 or 2016, there might be an outside chance, but in 2008, no. What, then, is fueling all of the Gore speculation online and in activist circles? The answer seems quite clearly to be an anti-Hillary Clinton loathing on the part of many Democratic activists. For example, take Ariana Huffington's latest:

It's still three years away but Hollywood is already starting to choose sides for 2008. And two very distinct camps have started to form: those backing Hillary, and those desperately searching for the anti-Hillary.(...)

The Hollywood insiders who are not going the Hillary way are not ready to go public yet (I'm sure some of them will even be at the Hillary fundraisers this weekend). But, in private conversations, a growing number of them say they are determined to find another candidate to support.(...)

The big question then becomes, who will be the candidate of the anti-Hillary crowd? Russ Feingold's out-front stance on Iraq has earned him some early attention from, among others, Brad Whitford and Tommy Schlamme. Norm Pattis of Westwood One Radio had a fundraiser for Joe Biden.

But more and more, the Hollywood buzz is centering on Al Gore.

Or the Washington Whispers piece, which mentions Clinton twice in a nine-sentence piece on Gore::

"It's Gore Time," says a political strategist and fundraiser who is opening a bid to get Gore into the race. Gore friends see his recent political and business moves as proof he's preparing to run. Allies say that in speeches, Gore has found his voice to address domestic and world issues. And in raising money for his Current TV network, which targets the critical youth market, Big Al has built an issue base and donor network that's competitive with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 's. Our source--a top aide in the previous Bush administration--is planning meetings with Gore's team to push an early entry while Clinton runs for re-election in New York.

And the always reliable New York Post:

AS SEN. Hillary Clinton ratchets up her attacks on Presi dent Bush, some Democrats think they smell an explanation: the threat of a 2008 Al Gore presidential bid that could come at her from the left on Iraq.

In all three stories that talk about a possible Gore run, the actual focus of the sotry sems to be as much about stopping Hillary Clinton as anything else. That isn't the only connection. One story is fueled by the conservative New York Post, another is fueled by a former staffer for Bush I, and the third is written by a long-time Republican activist recently turned progressive. So, not only are all three stories focused on stopping Clinton, they also all have connection to Republicans, who are obsessed with nothing if not hating Hillary Clinton.

Is it too much of a stretch to therefore argue that these rumors on Gore are just part of a larger anti-Hillary rumor mill? Gore has tried to make it perfectly clear that he is not running in 2008, but those who are the most desperate to stop her from winning seem to be trying to do anything but.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 48 Comments :: Post a Comment

What if it is coming from Hillary? (3.00 / 0)

Hillary folks might be trying to keep the Gore buzz alive to keep the anti-Hillary folks wishing on a horse that will never enter the race rather than moving toward Clark or Feingold.

If I was Hillary, I'd be keeping my opposition scattered. If NH and IA are blowouts because opposition has failed to consolidate, Hillary walks to the nomination. If the anyone-but-Hillary crowd starts to consolidate onto one or two choices, there's some chance she loses.

by Left in the West on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:34:57 PM EST

You make a (3.00 / 1)

persuasive case that the rumors are part of a Republican inspired anti-Hillary drive. Within netroots it is driven by a group of people who admire Al Gore.

That and the fact that other than Fiengold there is no one who publicly opposed the war in Iraq who is running for President.

by Alice Marshall on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:38:38 PM EST

Re: You make a (none / 0)

do you spread unsubstantiated speculation about someone you admire?

by thinkforyourself on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:40:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

David Geffen.. (none / 0)

Geffen has already gone on record stating his opposition to Hillary Clinton. He has raised money for Clinton in the past, but cited her polarizing personality as the main reason why Democrats should not take a risk on her candidacy.

I happen to agree with him and am glad there are wealthy donors displaying their reservations about a Hillary candidacy. I'm sick and tired of talking heads on television (including Democrats) assuming the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party fervently supports Hillary Clinton irregardless of her triangulation.

The anti-Hillary crowd isn't a netroots phenomenon, it is common in the real world as well. Democrats across the country want one thing: to win. Most rational, semi-politically astute individuals (a majority of democratic primary voters in the early states) recognize the risk we take by nominating Clinton. Some here champion her candidacy, but probably would acknowledge, that even against a weak candidate like Huckabee or Allen, she would a tough time overcoming the right-wing mobilization (not unlike what happened in 04 with us versus Bush). Of course, I don't think Hillary would be able to counter the other side's mobilization efforts by rallying our base to an unprecedented level.

As I've stated before, if we want to win this thing, and win it with a candidate who will govern effectively, we have several slam-dunk candidates: General Clark, Senator Edwards and Governor Warner. We also have a candidate who I think would be able to pick up states Hillary never could: Senator Feingold (wins Florida, Ohio, and puts West Virginia, Colorado, Montana, and Nevada in play). I fear Clinton would struggle mightily to keep the Kerry states (which people like Susan Estrich assume she would do). Minnesota and Wisconsin would be very tough sells for her, though she could do okay in Florida (though not as well as Feingold).

Besides these three candidates, I don't see a proven leader who has openly expressed interest in 2008 being able to win AND govern effectively. Bayh could win, but I'm not convinced he has the vision and intellect necessary to achieve great, progressive goals. Richardson has serious skeletons in his closet, which would hurt him badly (plus he is not telegenic, which while shallow, is a factor).

by Hadi on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:43:27 PM EST

Re: David Geffen.. (none / 0)

utopia. it rises now.

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Anti-Gore diaries (3.00 / 2)

Is it too much of a stretch to argue that these diaries on Gore are part of a larger anti-Gore rumor mill that encompasses Kos and Bowers?

For Gods' sakes, Gore's denial is a non-denial. If he doesn't declare by a couple of weeks before Iowa, well, maybe it will mean something.

by TrainWreck on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:07:25 PM EST

Re: Anti-Gore diaries (none / 0)

Agree. And his statement yesterday is considerably weaker than his earlier one. When I hear him say one of these, then I'll believe him:

"I will not run if not nominated. I will not serve if elected."

"I shall not seek, and will not accept, the nomination of my party."

by Paleo on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:09:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wishful thinking (none / 0)

I mean, for whatever reasons, it wouldn't be the first time that Democrats pinned their hopes on something that wasn't going to happen. I can't really blame them. Maybe this is the reverse of the usual, but I kind of think Hillary could win. I also think that if she did, it would be a long-term disaster for the Democrats and therefore the country. This is going to be a unique opportunity to try to pick the country up and turn it in a seriously different direction. She won't do that, and when the incrementalism and big-business-as-usual stuff fails, guess who'll get blamed?

by tatere on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:07:51 PM EST

Hillary (3.00 / 2)

Why anyone would want Hillary Clinton as the Dem nominee, is beyond me. She is hated by too many people and will never win. AND she is calling for more troops for the bogus war that she is on record supporting. The hell with her.

by steve expat on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:08:51 PM EST

Not Anti-Hillary, Anti-Iraq War (1.00 / 1)

Maybe this is more than a personality contest. Are there actual issues involved in not wanting to back Hillary?

Hillary Clinton has become a neo-con in her defense of the war, and is more of a hawk than George Bush. If Hillary were president, we would be sending more troops to Iraq. This is a matter of principle, I will work against war supporters and apologists, and I will work for people who actively oppose the war.

I myself wrote off Gore when he decided not to run in 2004. I just came back to him in August. It was nothing he had done, just a failure on the part of all other democrats of standing. I figured when public opinion turned decisively against the war, some dems would step up and I could join their camp. Still no one steps up. Even Feingold's comments are tepid at best- completely uninspiring.

Then I reviewed Gore's statements. Finally something and someone to believe in. He says eveything I want to hear in a coherent and inspiring message. What other democrat does that? If Gore, or someone else who can deliver his message as courageously does not start to lead the democratic party, it's over.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:10:35 PM EST

Re: Not Anti-Hillary, Anti-Iraq War (none / 0)

That's it for me. I will not support a Democratic nominee that is for the war in Iraq or who voted for it. Period.

by thinkforyourself on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Anti-Hillary, Anti-Iraq War (none / 0)

You're smoking crack if you think that Hillary would have gone into Iraq if she were president. To imply that and to call her a neocon is a vicious attack and makes me sick. If I were running, I wouldn't even want your fucking vote.

The only balls the Clintons ever show are against their fellow Democrats, especially progressives.

by jgarcia on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Anti-Hillary, Anti-Iraq War (none / 0)

"You're smoking crack if you think that Hillary would have gone into Iraq if she were president."

I'm not smoking crack. I dont think Hillary would have ordered the invasion of Iraq. She stated publically that she would not have. I dont think most Republicans would have either. Colin Powell stated in 2001 while Secretary of State that Iraq had no WMD's.

The problem that I have here is that the neo-cons have defined the legitamacy of the war. A massive propoganda campaign orchestrated by the neo-cons has turned violent American extremism and illegal war-mongering and war-profiteering into a reasonable and defensible political position.

Why was this allowed to happen? Because politicians of good conscience and the leaders of the Democratic Party who knew better feared some backlash, and like good Germans, stood silent in the face of Naziism.

Any politician who is willing to accept the premise of the war, even if they hedge and pick at the details, is complicit in its waging.

"To imply that and to call her a neocon is a vicious attack and makes me sick."

She advocates increasing the occupation army, she voted for the resolution to give Bush authority to invade, and she voted for the Patriot Act. You want someone with this record to win the presidency? Look, I am all for smart strategy when it comes to politics. It's obvious to me that smart strategy for prominent Democrats is to expose the neo-con's lies, and redefine the war as illegitamate. As support for the war, and the current administration plummets, is there a better time to do this than now?

But there is a larger question beyond political games. I dont want a Democrat who even tacitly supports the war to win national election. To paraphrase Thomas Moore, how does it benefit a senator to win election, if she loseth her soul?

I am really tired of people wanting me to assume that a wishy-washy kind-of-against-the-war politician who voted for the Patriot Act would transform into a beacon of liberal leadership after Kerry-fence-dancing into office. She has a congressional record now, which she built voting for (I will grant her) what she believes in. Based on that record, I will oppose her.

"If I were running, I wouldn't even want your fucking vote."

I regret if my hyperbole offends you, but when I think of all the Iraqi children slaughtered in US carpet bomb attacks, your petty concerns dont move me.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 12:36:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Anti-Hillary, Anti-Iraq War (none / 0)

Let me emend a statement I made here:

"I dont think Hillary would have ordered the invasion of Iraq. She stated publically that she would not have."

What she actually said, like Kerry, was that she would have given the inspections more time to work. This leaves open the possibility that after another few weeks, she would have ordered the invasion. Nice fence-sitting, Hillary. In this context, the actions of the neo-cons dont appear to be illegal and immoral, just a little hasty.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 01:23:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what a scoop (3.00 / 1)

Arianna has been a progressive for 8 years, so it's absurd to link this into to some anti-hillary thing from the right. In fact, she tells you up front that anti-hillaryism from the left, for god's sake. And for more confirmation, take a look at your own straw polls: she takes no higher than fourth or fifth here and on Kos. I'm not sure what your muddled post is trying to say, but if it's some sort of you-have-to-like-Hillary-or-you're-a-conservative, you're dead wrong. And your slap at Arianna, done apparently in service of bad logic to make a bad point, is gratuitous. If your threshold of who's pure enough to make it into your tent doesn't include Arianna, then you're looking at a long time in the minority.

by js100142 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:12:05 PM EST

Sherrod Brown made it clearer (3.00 / 1)

that he wasn't running for Senate in 2006 -- at a time when it directly affected another candidate's decision to enter the race.

I'm just sayin'...........

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:13:10 PM EST

I should add (none / 0)

That the reason Gore might reconsider -- and there's plenty of time for him to decide -- is precisely because people are clambering for him to.

In Brown's case, people were begging him to run. When he said "No", people pleaded with Hackett to toss his hat in the ring. When Hackett said yes, no one was asking Brown to reconsider!

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I should add (none / 0)

I just tuned into a random talk show in atlanta and there was a caller who called in about how there aren't anyone out there doing anything for us -

another caller chimed in that gore quietly stepped up to the plate in a big way post-katrina and now
he's standing on the ground there in Beijing + Sweden.

To me, this is de-facto presidency. I would have voted for a guy who understood the magnitude of just how low the pressure got inside of rita and how big Katrina got feeding off ever so globally warm water.

I also have inside information that Chris doesn't have. Ty Harrel, Gore's campaign finance manager, came to Atlanta not too long ago.

The picture he painted for us, in a private meeting of truly independent voters and democrats - (its easy to be a democrat up there in Pennsylvania, you don't get beaten up for it, do you chris?) during the election of 2000 was, frankly not good. It was one of indecision.

But then he painted another picture - a very intriguing picture. One of Al Gore, who endorsed Howard Dean for presidency (can anyone guess whether or not the Chairman of the Party will properly vet his candidacy... ) - one of Al Gore, who was incredibly decisive. Hitting every one of the notes.

I consider Gore's initiatives to bring the Kyoto protocols into full view, esp. in light of the fact that we have now, what - 50 american cities backing them in full defiance of the federal government trying to shut it down..- esp. in the current light - as nothing short of classic American.

Anyone who thinks Gore is happy running a TV station. I say this: its 2005. Fuck'em if they can't take a joke.

- TurnerBroadcasting

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore Quotes 10/12/05 (3.00 / 1)

If he was president:

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us."

"We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media."

"We would not be routinely torturing people."

"We would be a different country."

On a future political campaign:

"I don't completely rule out some future interest."

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:19:28 PM EST

Re: Gore Quotes 10/12/05 (none / 0)

The sad thing is, take an old yeller dog and put him in the white house.. and you would get..

all of the above.

(to quote metallica.) sad but true.

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:52:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So what does this mean (none / 0)

That the some Republicans are secretly scared of Hillary. I happen to think they are. They know how successful the Clinton's have been politically and what an organized and smart campaign she would run, compared to say, Al Gore.

(I know, I know, Gore has learned from his mistakes. But hey, the guy is wooden and no matter what he tries to do, he cannot change)

by Eric11 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:30:42 PM EST

Oh Please (3.00 / 1)

Don't think so highly of one self.

Maybe people are hoping Al Gore would run for President again, because the opportunity is arising and HE WOULD BE AN OUTSTANDING PRESIDENT.

Jeesh. Stop trying to make it about someone else.

Al Gore is progressive, intelligent and has great ideas. Maybe we supporters of a hopeful Al Gore Presidential campaign just want the best possible. And that means Al Gore. I truly hope if he doesn't have plans right now, he will be changing his mind by 2007.

by LindainCincinnati on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:43:12 PM EST

Re: Oh Please (3.00 / 1)

don't forget deeply religious in a way never seen before. A man who studied at Harvard Divinity school.

He's not so in your face as the other ones are. I think in the end, no more chimps should be a good rule for the presidency. Gore would roll up his
sleeves and get to work.

The real gamble for me is not whether Gore runs. Thats not important. Its that, are we. as a country. going to be grown up enough to be able to elect someone whose sole focus is to better our country.

You know, read the newspapers. Maybe even read a few lines of these patriot acts here... tweak them a little... veto one or two...

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's the point (none / 0)

Suppose the only reason for these rumours is Democrats craving an alternative to Hillary. (Myself included.)

Then isn't that just as good a reason for Gore to change his mind about not running?

by captain on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:46:01 PM EST

We already have an alternative (none / 0)

His name is Feingold.

by Geotpf on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:59:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We already have an alternative (none / 0)

Russ is pretty good but McCain is going to run and win from the Republican side (its already decided, you know, the republicans are totally boring about stuff like this - they appoint from within)

So there would be too much love on the podium. McCain wins vs. Feingold.

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain wins vs. any Democrat (none / 0)

Doesn't matter who we run against them, McCain will almost certainly win in a landslide. Our only hope is that he doesn't run (perhaps for health reasons-he will be quite old in 08 to be a presidential canidate) or that he gets defeated in the primary. Independents worship him, and even some Democrats are fooled by his maverick/"moderate" rep (he's the fourth most conservative senator-that's not very moderate).

Feingold does mention and/or praise McCain a lot, partly because they agree on some issues, and partly so that McCain's maverick image rubs off on him (not that Feingold needs it to boost his rep there).

A debate between the two would be interesting and informative, if not a bit of a love fest. If those were the nominees, the campaign would be a lot less negative than typical. But McCain would probably win in the end.

by Geotpf on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:14:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Dean fuels Gore (none / 0)

The two biggest and best known Democratic voices against the war have been Howard Dean and Al Gore. Dean has taken himself out which leaves Gore and some senators. Unless Feingold catches fire, at least a little, people will still think of Gore.

In the second term, many of the Bush miscues from term I are coming home to roost. We not only have buyer's remorse we have it in spades. That, too, leads to Gore.

I just wish Al Gore had been able to make the case more persuasively that he would govern like Clinton without the personal problem. Geesh. A little more suck up to the press and it couldn't have been stolen.

by David Kowalski on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:01:09 PM EST

I have a difficult time handicapping a Hillary run (3.00 / 1)

We desperately need to recapture the support of white women. That's game/set/match in 2006, 2008 and foreseeable. I'm really astonished there isn't more focus or acknowledgement that it's one block of voters who are deciding our fate. Just look at any sampling of legit numbers from 1996 to 2004 and you'll see white women, particularly married white women, have edged away from us, first due to Monica and mostly due to 9/11, and that's sealed our fate.

But is a white woman the vehicle to regain their vote? I go back and forth. The anyone-but-Hillary gang is way off, IMO. They generally seem to be the same ones who isolated Kerry as most electable last year. I'm admittedly basing that on posters at another forum, not here, but the number is substantial.

Hillary would no doubt run a very smart campaign with all the correct priorities. Since she's been a polarizing figure for more than a dozen years, we'd actually benefit from negative opinions basically being locked in place. The GOP, in fact, would be in a bit of a jam. They couldn't Swift Boat her with old stuff like Whitewater. That would bounce with a laugh. If anything, Hillary would gain in personal popularity once she came off as more natural and likeable than her long term rep. That's essentially what happened during her statewide senate tour in 2000.

As always, I prefer to focus on the big picture not trivial minutae: is the country ready for a woman president? I'm not sure the answer is yes. You can't routinely reject the reason that question is still posed so often, and focus on Hillary herself to handicap 2008.

by jagakid on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:47:49 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

I agree with your difficulty in figuring out how Hillary might do. In her favor, she's clearly an intelligent person and a savvy politician. For similar reasons, I can't imagine her losing a state that Kerry won, because I think Kerry was neither smart nor savvy. Arguing against her, though, is that clearly a good portion of the Republican base is going to be alienated by whomever they eventually nominate, and perhaps the only person who could keep that fragile coalition together and motivated to vote is Hillary Clinton. I think she could win, but if she could, then so could Edwards.

Obviously you're not a golfer.

by alydar on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:25:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: difficult time handicapping a Hillary (none / 0)

I enjoyed your post. You make some great points. I also think there is something more than politics at play here with some posters when it comes to Hillary. Criticism of her is fine, but it is getting extreme and underhanded. Some of the cheap shots are pissing me off.

My only explanation is that the people who say she's unelectable are the same ones who did indeed give us Kerry. And they are so afraid of the rightwing and so intimidated by them, they want to hide under their beds and give in rather than fight. In a word, they are pussies. Or maybe it's envy or jealousy. I do not know.

HRC can handle the attacks. Anyone who doubts this has been in a cave since 1992.

The only balls the Clintons ever show are against their fellow Democrats, especially progressives.

by jgarcia on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:31:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Response later today. (3.00 / 1)

As an unabashed Gore supporter, I will return later and respond to the diary in detail.

Thanks.

fellow-Goristas: Gore still HAS NOT ruled out a run:

Gore, who now runs a cable TV channel and is the chairman of an investment company, did not completely shut the door to future political endeavors.

``I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that,'' Gore said.

LINK here.

Keep hope alive, as I am :)

lol, y'all!

CLICK to Draft Al Gore!

by NeoLiberal on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:20:05 PM EST

Re: Response later today. (3.00 / 1)

hey neoliberal. seriously - do you think America is ready for a guy that could actually get shit done or are we going to be getting our freaking jollies out of the candidates up there.

Tell me: what reason does chris bowers have to post thirty five times a day. for me, I'm a writer and a scientist and I'm stuck here writing anyway so I might as well post the odd one or two.

Doesn't a bull in a china store make a great 30 minute reality TV show? Isn't that the great big reason why everyone's going to walk out of Class on NOVEMBER 2

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When the Primary is over (none / 0)

And it's the Republican machine's turn to start punching... Hillary is a goner. Not because she is this or that, but because of Bill.
It's mean, it's rude, but it WILL happen... They will simply say, what if He does it again? How would that make us look if Bill was cuckolding the President of the United States, instead of the other way around this time?
Besides, I don't WANT an American War of The Roses... A rose is a rose, red or blue. We have more than two outstanding bloodlines... Besides, all this argument against the concentraion of power? Two families playing hide the Presidency makes one wonder why we don't just get rid of term limits, and go back to Royal procession.
Gore is great a candidate. He has the best qualifications... He has the experience, and he doesn't have Bill's pecker tracks following him.
If we get Gore, we will be a lucky nation, and we will have a Democrat in the Presidency.

by mad donkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:27:44 PM EST

Re: When the Primary is over (none / 0)

I think a lot of people write off Gore off-hand, but remember, America does love an underdog, and Springsteen has spent his entire career singing about Redemption. I don't if Gore could win, but I've always liked the guy and would obviously support him were he the nominee.

Obviously you're not a golfer.

by alydar on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When the Primary is over (none / 0)

Which candidate has more proof that he/she can win a Presidential election? The one who has, or the one who hasn't?

by mad donkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When the Primary is over (none / 0)

Well, Gore made it close enough to lose. Analgous to letting a bad call by a referee lose you a game -- if it is that close, you only have yourself to blame (okay, truth be told, I blame a LOT of people, but from a learning point-of-view, I find it helpful to direct the blame inward). Gore coming close in 2000, in my mind, doesn't make him and more or less legitimate in 2008. 8 years is a long time, and the political landscape has changed, as have public perceptions of people and issues. Dewey almost won an election and I don't think he ever ran again. Nixon almost won an election and then later did. So history is divided on this, and thus isn't the best teacher for Gore's prospects.

Obviously you're not a golfer.

by alydar on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When the Primary is over (none / 0)

Very pragmatic... But when someone steals your bike, and you know who stole it, you don't say: Well, I guess I won't park my bike there anymore. You don't say, it's my own fault for not getting a better lock...
If you want to blame the victim of a theft, especially of something valuable... Of course, that's your option. I, personally, do not blame Gore. I don't think anyone was expecting what came crawling out from under the bed against Gore. Handed a dynamic that forced him to fight "nice" against lowered expectations, while investigative journalists could barely figure out GW's birthday?
People don't seem to understand just how easy it is to make someone look the way you want them to on television, and Gore didn't start his own network 'cause the American media was doing a great job. I agree with him, it stinks... So taking them on is another move of fortitude, in my opinion... But, it surely has an influence on voters.

by mad donkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:04:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When the Primary is over (none / 0)

i don't think that's an apt analogy, or at least not a very full one. if I lock my bike with a cord I could cut with a pen knife, doesn't some of the blame fall on me? Yeah, I'm a victim, but I'm also stupid in that case.

I certainly don't lay most of the blame on Gore... on the left, there's Clinton, who's personal life made Gore have to run from 8 years of prosperity, and Nadar, who was tilting at windmills. In the middle, there was the press that just kinda seemed to not like him, and on the right, well, Lee Atwater would have been proud. But in the end, Gore did lose, and thus some of the blame does land on his shoulders.

Obviously you're not a golfer.

by alydar on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When the Primary is over (none / 0)

I think Jimmy Carter is a good source... He's even Evangelical ( I think), and he has more experience in judging elections and "spreading Democracy" than anyone I can think of. I think he knows what he is saying when he calls the current president's election illigitimate.
As to whether the analogy is apt...
Stupid enough to sit around wondering if it's your fault, while someone is riding your bike away... Yeah.
If your contention is that Gore lost because he is stupid, in that case I disagree.

by mad donkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When the Primary is over (none / 0)

In the middle, there was the press that just kinda seemed to not like him,

Yeah, right in the middle...
What is it with people who are willing to agree that the msm sucks dookie, and, at the same time, think that they have axes to grind about every issue... Except Gore. Who has actively been saying exactly that, and is trying to change it. Going so far as to start his own network... which is competing with them.
But, for some reason, people seem to think that they have a "fair and Balanced" perspective of Gore.

by mad donkey on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 01:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When the Primary is over (none / 0)

Dewey was out of chances. He'd already lost to FDR in 1944 before losing to Truman in 1948. Said Everett Dirksen from the podium of the 1952 Republican National Convention, "We followed you before and you led us down the road to defeat."

Gore's parallel to Nixon, however, is quite striking.

by morinao on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The consensus of this thread is clear (3.00 / 1)

Gore would win in a dead heat. About 70 percent of this group are relatively hard core in their beliefes and about all of us vote in the primary.

Now, if I get my numbers right, only a few of us vote in the primary - so that means that inthe constituency that matters the most - the primary - he'd win.

How would gore match up against McCain?

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:55:20 PM EST

Re: The consensus of this thread is clear (none / 0)

I think that's a good possibilty, too. I do wonder about McCains physical condition, age...
However, the thing I really like about this... Really like. Is that I would LIKE to have that contest. I think both men are honest, intelligent, straight foreward and qualified for the job. IMHO, that would be an election worthy of raising the turn out.

by mad donkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The consensus of this thread is clear (none / 0)

Agreed. McCain in the White House is definitely a lesser of the Frist/Brownback/Rice/Romney crowd getting in there. I don't think there is any Democrat who would make me vote for McCain (I'm still POd at the way he sold-out his principles by campaigning for Bush, whom he clearly doesn't respect). But he's not an anti-science right-wing moron.

Obviously you're not a golfer.

by alydar on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:28:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not the same with Hil (none / 0)

I will say this, though... I think there would be plenty of people who weren't AS PO'd as you. Voting for another Clinton would be very difficult for me... I just don't believe it's a good choice to keep bouncing from Bush to Clinton. I don't think either family has been THAT much better than other families.
If it's not going to be against a Bushie, but against a person I am not going to vote AGAINST...
I have to say, i feel the democrats allowed me to become disenfranchised in 2000, and they haven't done anything to show me they give damn about it... Even while they all yelling about it. Quite the contrary, in the case of the DLC, they seem to enjoy teasing us about it, and calling us whiners, and sore losers... If that's how they feel about my vote, screw 'em. It doesn't look like they have the stuff to put a candidate in office win or not.

by mad donkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:51:47 PM EST

Could anyone refute Arianna's points? (none / 0)

Partisan Clinton family-worshipping partisan democrats are being too vague in their criticizm of Arianna's views. Please Be specific and cite examples refuting the points she makes against Hillary.

by TheLeft on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 01:08:42 AM EST

What's going on here? (3.00 / 1)

Kos is trumpeting that Gore has closed the door. Chris Bowers is claiming that support for Gore is coming from anti-Clinton Republicans. Is it because the two are backing another candidate who would be crowed out of the race should Gore jump in?

The fact is that opposition to Hillary from Democrats and belief that Gore is the only anti-Iraq war candidate who can win both the nomination and the election is behind the Gore chatter.

by Paleo on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 04:22:22 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.