« CanAmerica | Main | The Seduction of James »
October 12, 2005
More on Gore
Arianna Huffington's got an interesting post on the many Hollywood funders who're tiring of Hillary and beginning to turn their attention towards Gore. Regular readers know this is one of my favorite drums to beat, so it's nice to see party bigwigs picking up the tune. As Arianna tells it, the basic story is that Hillary's centrist positioning is turning off many progressives who realize, rightly, that it's not an act, that Hillary is a moderate, that the mere fact that Republicans despise her is not the best way to understand her political views.
Good to hear.
The second, more implicit portion of the story is that Democrats seem to realize they need a Name for 2008. Republicans have this down -- the Guiliani/McCain talk is an effort to nominate a character familiar enough to Americans that they'll trust them to guide us through Iraq, around terror, past the coming fiscal crises. Democrats need a bigfoot as well, whichb is why Hillary and her enormous pumps dominated the field for so long. But Gore's got boots too.
He was the Vice-President -- part of the ticket! -- for the Clinton years, a leading voice on foreign policy in Congress, aware of global warming and energy crises long before the rest of us. He can be trusted. He's won the vote before, he's got the experience to handle Iraq, and now, lo and behold, he's shed the stilted, stentorian tone of his campaign speeches for the sort of wonkish, visionary progessivism liberals love. I'm glad to see the funders have noticed. If the Gore 08 whispering campaign continues slinking through the papers, racking up blind quotes from moneymen and strategists, the ground for a Draft Al campaign will be well laid. If the rest of the field is unable to effectively challenge Hillary, the Democratic primaries might end in a media-grabbing, attention-attracting struggle between two party titans, and with McCain and Giuliani giving foot massages to reporters in Iowa, that may be just what we need.
October 12, 2005 in Election 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834595b6369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Gore:
» Love her… from Upper Left
…or loathe her, there's no question that Ezra's right about Hillary… [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 12, 2005 9:18:49 PM
Comments
Didn't Gore say just this week that he is not going to be running for any elections in the future in response to questions about a possible presidential run?
Posted by: Mihir | Oct 12, 2005 3:26:54 PM
As I distinctly recall, Bill Clinton in 1992 was more of a dark horse than a favorite, but won the Presidency not because of his track record but because he was damned impressive during the campaign. Al Gore, for all his good qualities, was not impressive enough to win in 2000.
The Democrats would be best served by someone who is just plain impressive like Clinton was. That is a tall order I realize, but there is time between now and 2008 for someone to step up their game and impress.
Posted by: David W. | Oct 12, 2005 3:37:30 PM
The Democrats would be best served by someone who is just plain impressive like Clinton was.
A person like that only comes around once every 20-30 years. We can't simply sit around and "wait for someone impressive to show up."
Posted by: Constantine | Oct 12, 2005 3:49:05 PM
Clinton loved campaigning, and governing, and smooshing. In some ways both Hillary and Al Gore are similar: both have a glacial coolness about them that isn't endearing to 'common folk'.
Forced to choose, Gore is less obviously manipulative, and Hillary more personally engaging.
Gore appears no longer to have presidential 'fire in the belly', and Hillary keeps whatever fire she has well hidden. I would not be surprised at all if Hillary did not enter the race at all - she seems quite comfortable in the Senate and sure couldn't welcome the return of Hillary bashing she endured before.
For me, another candidate with less baggage from previous national political battles that were, at best, ambiguous in outcome, would be prefereable to either Gore or Hillary.
The dKos folks sure do like Wes Clark, Hillary is falling, and Mark Warner rising some. I don't know enough about Warner, but his success in a border/southern state says a lot.
I guess I just want a fresh face and less obvious re-warming of leftover meals. Schweitzer? Warner? Clark?
My take on Al Gore: the best VP EVER. Not so likely as the best candidate the Dems could have for 2008. I can like, honor and respect a person without thinking they should lead the Dems into what will undoubtedly be the battle royale for control of the US government.
Posted by: JimPortandOR | Oct 12, 2005 3:51:45 PM
Good God, Ezra. I love Gore but that was the scariest thing I've ever read.
Why should any of us care what a bunch of Hollywood liberals think? Do we really want a nominee who is seduced into running by the enthusiasm of pretty millionaires? I think it's great that Gore has managed to engraciate himself with the high-profile goo-coo (good corporate) left -- we need such a movement and it needs figures to rally around. (And he needs them to promote Current and the rest of what he's doing.)
But this reads like "flavour of the month". And running for president as the candidate of the Hollywood-Silicon Valley left is a terrible idea. It's a recipe for electoral failure and it screams "elitism" -- not to just to general election voters, but to Iowa primary types too. And that's how it'll get played in the press.
The names Arianna gave at the Hillary confab are Gore's friends as well. I'd guess the chance of him upsetting these people and running against Hillary are pretty low.
Also, the activists' fixation on the war is pretty myopic. Gore is and always has been a far more conservative Democrat than either Clinton (I don't think this is a bad thing).
I could be convinced that Gore in 08 is a good thing but this sure isn't doing it.
Posted by: tlaura | Oct 12, 2005 4:22:54 PM
I would not only vote for Al, I would work to help get him elected.
The growth he has shown since the 2000 elections, the things he has said, and the way that he has said them have transformed him from a presentation standpoint.
America loves a comeback story. Especially a comeback where the hero is resurrected, having learned his lesson and having changed for the better.
And the fact that Gore actually got over 500,000 more votes than Bush and had the election stolen from him is another heartwarming story - especially since Al never took the low road on the subject.
Then consider how much the right wing media slimed Gore and discredited him on style points and lies.
Here is a man who sounded the early warning not just on global warming and alternative energies but also on Social Security and raiding the surplus.
I don't think that "lock box" sounds so funny now, does it?
In this era when science and technology are more important than ever, who has better credentials and crediblity on those subjects than Al Gore?
Al Gore also has the foreign policy experience and expertise that we need today.
And when it comes to the having the skill set and the competence to do the job, and the work ethic necessary not to find it "hard work," Al Gore is the man once again.
The fact is that Al Gore was right on Iraq from the beginning, is on the record saying so and even endorsed Howard Dean in '04, showed the courage of his convictions during the last election.
The only other Democrat who can take the "I was right" stance on Iraq is Russ Feingold, who would make a great V.P.
Al Gore's intellect and brainpower worked against him in 2000, but I think America knows that it's time we got a smart person back into the White House.
I think America would rather have that bridge to the 21st century than that bridge to nowhere in Alaska that Bush will approve in his next budget.
I think if Al Gore decides to run he will kick the ass of any candidate that runs against him - both in the primaries and in the general election.
One last thing - if Al Gore had been in office on 9-11 then Osama Bin Laden would be dead now and the 2,000 Americans killed in Iraq who died for absolutely nothing would be alive.
Posted by: The Angry Buddhist | Oct 12, 2005 4:23:42 PM
Why should any of us care what a bunch of Hollywood liberals think?
Hear, hear!!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Oct 12, 2005 4:39:28 PM
Al Gore, for all his good qualities, was not impressive enough to win in 2000.
Funny. I seem to remember that Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
That might suggest that he was considered more impressive by a majority of voters than the imbecile who ended up running the country.
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Oct 12, 2005 5:04:42 PM
I'll give Gore an audition, but I hated his 2000 campaign a lot. My eyes are on Edwards.
Posted by: Kimmitt | Oct 12, 2005 5:11:52 PM
This just hit the wires:
Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be "a different country" if he had won the 2000 election, launching into a scathing attack of the Bush administration.
"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.
Posted by: Scott | Oct 12, 2005 5:26:32 PM
"One last thing - if Al Gore had been in office on 9-11 then Osama Bin Laden would be dead now and the 2,000 Americans killed in Iraq who died for absolutely nothing would be alive."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha......hahahahahahahahah.....oh mercy! Fwew!
Thanks
Seriously tho,
"lo and behold, he's shed the stilted, stentorian tone of his campaign speeches for the sort of wonkish, visionary progessivism liberals love."
That means he will appeal to about 15 percent of the population.
He will be explaining his far left statements to the rest of the Democratic party, he will get absolutely no Republican crossover votes. He was more appealing to middle America in 2000.
I can't stand Hillary, but she ain't stupid. She is moving to the right for a reason. Although while trying to appease the far left special interests at the same time might hurt her. But her statements in the last 5 years aren't going to come back to haunt her, Gore's will come back to haunt him.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 6:27:38 PM
Funny, but I seem to remember that Al Gore was actually declared the winner of the 2000 Election when the ballots were actually counted.
Posted by: Catherine | Oct 12, 2005 6:53:40 PM
"Funny, but I seem to remember that Al Gore was actually declared the winner of the 2000 Election when the ballots were actually counted."
"In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted."
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 7:00:46 PM
Do you think this appeals to mainstream America?
"When asked how the United States would have been different if he had become president,...
"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country."
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 7:27:09 PM
Uh, yeah. I don't think mainstream America is for routine torture, do you?
Posted by: Ezra | Oct 12, 2005 7:51:55 PM
Gore is the politician that I trust and respect the most, but unfortunately he was probably right not to run in 2004, and not running in 2008 will probably be the right decision then as well. Go back to what he said in 2002 "I still have the energy and ambition and desire to run for President, but I don't think it's the right thing for me to do" Also "I'd like to be President, think I'd do a good job at it, the question is `Is running the right thing to do?'
He couldn't honestly answer "yes" to that question, which is why he didn't run in 2004, and why he probably won't run in 2008. If Gore were to win the Presidency in 2008, it would make the last 8 years a tragedy. And psychologically, many Americans do not want these last 8 years to have been a tragedy.
Besides Gore, the candidate I like best on substance is Wes Clark (who's good politically as well). If you think in terms of electability rather than substance, you have to think in terms of who can beat McCain, Giuliani or Frist. Ultimately, Frist's biography gives him credibility as a candidate, no matter what. The same people who make fun of Frist now were making fun of Kerry earlier, before he kicked everybody's butt.
In terms of electability, Edwards may be the best of the lot (and he's substanively very good as well). This is an off-the-wall idea, but you know who could be really great as a candidate? Elizabeth Edwards. Probably her kids are too young, she's still recovering from cancer, etc. but she's amazing. I like Wes Clark better than John Edwards mainly because of Iraq-related issues, but Elizabeth Edwards would make me think a bit.
Really, it's time for Democrats to nominate a woman, but other than Elizabeth Edwards and HRC, I can't think of anyone. And Hillary Clinton would just be too icky, because of the whole dynastic/entitlement thing.
Oh, and Captain Toke, the only military ballots that were disqualified in Florida 2000 were military ballots from registered Democrats, and they were disqualified by the Bush-Cheney campaign. Look it up. Bush & Cheney were charlatans then, and they're charlatans now. Still time for you to join the right team.
Posted by: roublen vesseau | Oct 12, 2005 7:56:05 PM
Where is the proof that the Bush administration is responsible for torture?
I know it is fun for liberals to make up chants about Bush and torture, but it has no basis in fact.
Why do you think Dean was beaten? Cuz he made idiotic statements and was deemed 'unelectable'. Gore, after the statements he has made, like the one above, has rendered himself 'unelectable'.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 7:59:23 PM
I like John Edwards. Gore would run better than Hillary, but he hasn't gotten alot more attractive to voters since 2000.
Posted by: Joe O | Oct 12, 2005 8:19:52 PM
Where is the proof that the Bush administration is responsible for torture?
his troops, happened on his watch, means he's responsible. kinda goes with the job.
or are you suggesting that he isnt the man in charge?
Posted by: the shreeking ape | Oct 12, 2005 8:57:11 PM
I assume you are referring to Abu Graib and the people responsible are in prison or on trial. And that wasn't torture, that was abuse by guards. Is Bush to blame for every person in US prisons who gets beaten by guards?
Of course not, no reasonable person would think he is to blame, unless they could show evidence that the administration condones torture.
Where is the evidence of torture by this administration?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 9:14:38 PM
Where is the evidence of torture by this administration?
wriggle and hairsplit all you like, but the fact that such a memo was written at all doesn't say much for the admin in the first place:
('hey alberto, write me up a memo to explain to me what torture is, legally!').
Posted by: the shreeking ape | Oct 12, 2005 10:14:03 PM
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in there about condoning torture. Where does it say that the administration condones torture?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 11:08:59 PM
It's too early to get a good sense of what thing's will be like in 2008, but at this stage, I don't have much enthusiasm for Gore. Sure, he won the popular vote, but he was the VP in an administration that had two terms of prosperity in an election where national security wasn't an issue at all, and he barely won the popular vote. And he really blew those debates.
And we already know the press corp doesn't like him. How's he gonna fare with them in a battle with their darling boy McCain? Bob Somerby would be catatonic by the end of the campaign.
Maybe he can manage a comeback, and maybe he could win, but right now I feel the onus is on him to show that he deserves another shot.
Posted by: Royko | Oct 12, 2005 11:33:50 PM
from Andrew Sullivan's site:
"TEXAS VERSUS BUSH: Every single major Texas paper has come out in favor of the McCain amendment barring torture and abuse of detainees and clarifying rules for their treatment. From the Houston Chronicle:
[N]o president should have the authority or flexibility to order the torture or abuse of prisoners. It doesn't produce usable intelligence, it endangers the safety of captured U.S. troops and it's wrong on its face. The similarity of the alleged mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay to the documented prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests a pattern of official encouragement or indifference.
The San Antonio Express-News:
The White House has threatened a presidential veto. During nearly five years in the Oval Office, Bush has yet to veto a bill. This is not the place to start.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
What the president and others who might oppose this legislation must understand is that this country can never own the moral high ground -- in war or peace -- if it is willing to do what it condemns others for doing.
And the Austin American-Statesman.
This is, of course, a no-brainer - as long as you assume that this president isn't committed to torture and abuse as a policy. But he is and long has been. Moreover, reversing what has been going on completely strips him of his defense that none of it happened, or that only a few incidents occurred, or that no one higher up knew, or whatever his latest spin is. He may have to veto to maintain the fallacious facade of the last three years. With any luck, the House will vote by a non-vetoable margin, just as the Senate has. But if Bush is forced to veto, so be it. Let him be forced to embrace publicly what he has enforced privately: the corruption of the moral integrity of the armed services of the United States. And let him finally be held to account."
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_10_09_dish_archive.html#112897728644466065
there's also Sullivan's article, "Ian Fishback: an American Hero":
"Meet an American hero. He's Army Captain Ian Fishback, a decorated graduate of West Point, and in training to become a member of the elite Special Forces. He has served two combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is described by friends as a devout Christian who prays before every meal and carries a copy of the U.S. Constitution in his pocket. And while serving at Camp Mercury near the Syrian border in Iraq, he observed horrifying abuse of prisoners, in testimony that was released last week by Human Rights Watch. He has testified to habitual beatings to the face and body before interrogation, the pouring of burning chemicals on prisoners' faces, routine shackling in positions that led to physical collapse, forced exercizes that led prisoners to lose consciousness, and stacking prisoners in pyramids in the same mode as Abu Ghraib. These abuses occurred before, during and after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. Fishback testified that commanders directed and condoned the abuse. "I would be told, 'These guys were IED [improvised explosive device] trigger men last week.' So we would f--- them up. F--- them up bad ... But you gotta understand, this was the norm. Everyone would just sweep it under the rug." Prisoners were apparently called "PUCs", for "Persons Under Control." Another sergeant testified: "Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport. One day [another sergeant] shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy's leg with a mini-Louisville Slugger, a metal bat. As long as no PUCs came up dead, it happened. We kept it to broken arms and legs."
Fishback finally decided to take a stand when he saw Donald Rumsfeld testify to the Senate on television that the Iraq war was subject to the Geneva Conventions. So he went to his superiors and told them he believed that what was going on was a clear, continuing violation. They ignored him and told him his career would suffer if he persisted in his complaints. But Fishback's conscience propelled him forward. He went all the way to the Secretary of the Army. He tried to stop the abuse and get clear guidelines on prisoner treatment for a full seventeen months and was told again and again that he was betraying his unit, and aiding the enemy with his dogged inquiries. He even went to Senate aides. Finally, one man responded: Senator McCain, another war-hero who endured five years of being tortured by the Viet Cong. Fishback's full letter to McCain is a poignant illustration of what has happened to America these past three years. . ."
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20051002
apologies for length.
Posted by: roublen | Oct 13, 2005 12:14:23 AM
Where is the proof that the Bush administration is responsible for torture?
Torture is reasonably defined in the Geneva Conventions, which the US adopted and are equal in weight judicially with the US Constition.
In addition US Law essentially adopts this international standard. "Take care that the laws be faithfully executed".
Memos from DoD and the Justice Dept are public record indicating that BushCo was trying valiantly to get around these limits. DoD issued guidance that was interpreted and applied in numerous facilities, not just Abu Ghraib, that clearly fails to met the US and international standards. Military JAG's at the highest levels objected to this guidance from DoD.
The Senate has passed further laws to outlaw tortue and abuse by the military, and BushCo threatens for the first time in Bush's to veto DoD appropriations to prevent this law from being enacted.
When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck.
Is there much doubt that US or international courts would find BushCo violated laws and treaties on torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere - if their were non-BushCo prosecutors in the DoJ examining the facts?
Denial is one of the stages toward dealing with oncoming death. Get past it, Captain Toke. You will experience new insight into the truth.
Posted by: JimPortandOR | Oct 13, 2005 2:07:55 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
