« What Medicare Isn't | Main | The Long-Term Politics of Health Care (Or Why We Shouldn't Compromise) »
July 28, 2005
More on Gore
I'd just like to welcome Matt, Marshall and Atrios to the Gore 08 party (and how many parties do both Duncan Black and Marshall Wittman attend together? Not many. That alone should make Democrats take Gore seriously -- Ed). We've been slumped over at the bar here since early May. After I wrote my original post on it, I was e-mailed some fairly dispiriting information on Gore's feelings towards another candidacy, but the truth is, until he echoes Sherman, the door remains open.
Gore, if anything, starts in a better position than Hillary. Already defined as a credible candidate, there's nothing Republicans can do that'll make him look unfit to lead (the country, indeed, already voted for him once). If he can keep his recent speaking style, boring won't apply, at least not so much. His credibility with the left-wing of the party is massive and real. Unlike Hillary, who inspires a fair amount of distrust, Gore's endorsement of Dean and his alliance with MoveOn have turned the ultimate establishment candidate into something of a left-wing insurgent. That should make him a fierce online fundraiser, with small donor rolls that'll dwarf even Dean's, a particularly important strength since that great sucking sound you've been hearing is Hillary hoovering all the early money.
But maybe the best argument for a Gore candidacy is that he'd be a capable president during a time when we need one. Read any biography of Clinton you like, you'll invariably exit with the impression that Gore would have been better in the Oval Office than Bill. The guy's an expert on military policy, an experienced hand at foreign policy, and understands the coming energy issues in a way few do. Indeed, with environmentalism polling as one of Democrats' top strengths and foreign oil eliciting a wholly unexpected consensus for action, Gore's credibility on earth issues might be uniquely useful. Add that he can tie himself to Clinton economic legacy more credibly than even Hillary can and you've got a powerful domestic argument for his candidacy.
But it's the foreign policy credentials that, for me, seal the deal. In this period, Democrats should seriously consider nominating a highly competent candidate whom the country, to some degree or another, already trusts. Unless Cheney runs, something I see as overpoweringly unlikely, a mostly-unknown Republican will be taking the stage. Gore can claim more national experience than absolutely anyone they have. And at this point in time, with iraq proving a mess and terrorism remaining a threat, that may be crucial.
It's a scary world out there and what Kerry proved is that we don't want questions about our candidate's ability to effectively confront it. To varying degrees, both Gore and Hillary provide that certainty. But Gore does it without the intense polarization. In 1972 1968, Nixon ran in a tough, uncertain time as the guy with enough experience to successfully end the Vietnam War. Had he been an unknown, it'd never have worked. But having been vice-president, his competence seemed a uniquely attractive attribute.
I don't really need to finish the analogy, do I?
July 28, 2005 in Election 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83458a6ad69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Gore:
» Say It Ain't So, Rebranding and Other Bloodsucking from Now That's Progress
No offense, Al, but I hope your channel fails and you need to find something new to keep you busy, like a presidential race.
* Democracy Guy rains on the Hackett parade. And while I respect his opinion, I can't really understand his point. Is it b... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 29, 2005 11:29:51 AM
» Say It Ain't So, Rebranding and Other Bloodsucking from Now That's Progress
No offense, Al, but I hope your channel fails and you need to find something new to keep you busy, like a presidential race.
* Democracy Guy rains on the Hackett parade. And while I respect his opinion, I can't really understand his point. Is it b... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 29, 2005 11:31:51 AM
» Say It Ain't So, Rebranding, Other Bloodsucking from Now That's Progress
No offense, Al, but I hope your channel fails and you need to find something new to keep you busy, like a presidential race.
* Democracy Guy rains on the Hackett parade. And while I respect his opinion, I can't really understand his point. Is it b... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 29, 2005 11:32:45 AM
» Say It Ain't So, Rebranding, Other Bloodsucking from Now That's Progress
No offense, Al, but I hope your channel fails and you need to find something new to keep you busy, like a presidential race.
* Democracy Guy rains on the Hackett parade. And while I respect his opinion, I can't really understand his point. Is it b... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 29, 2005 11:34:46 AM
» Gore 08? from Cosmic Variance
Certain corners of the liberal blogosphere, suffering from various combinations of amnesia and masochism, have hit upon the perfect Presidential candidate for 2008: Al Gore. See Marshall Wittman, Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Atrios, Scott Lemieux. ... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 29, 2005 12:26:06 PM
» Gore 08? from Cosmic Variance
Certain corners of the liberal blogosphere, suffering from various combinations of amnesia and masochism, have hit upon the perfect Presidential candidate for 2008: Al Gore. See Marshall Wittman, Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Atrios, Scott Lemieux. ... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 29, 2005 12:28:06 PM
» Al Gore's Blogger Following from Beltway Blogroll
Former Vice President Al Gore lost the presidential race in 2000 and decided not to run again in 2004, but he still has a following, albeit a small one for now, in the blogosphere. Ezra Klein floated the idea of... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 29, 2005 12:50:22 PM
» Gore. Yes, you heard me -- Gore from E Pluribus Unum
Gore? In '08? From Ezra Klein:Gore, if anything, starts in a better position than Hillary. Already defined as a credible candidate, there's nothing Republicans can do that'll make him look unfit to lead (the country, indeed, already voted for him... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 29, 2005 4:27:54 PM
» Gore. Yes, you heard me -- Gore from E Pluribus Unum
Gore? In '08? From Ezra Klein:Gore, if anything, starts in a better position than Hillary. Already defined as a credible candidate, there's nothing Republicans can do that'll make him look unfit to lead (the country, indeed, already voted for him... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 29, 2005 4:29:47 PM
» Al Gore's Blogger Following from Beltway Blogroll
Former Vice President Al Gore lost the presidential race in 2000 and decided not to run again in 2004, but he still has a following, albeit a small one for now, in the blogosphere. Ezra Klein floated the idea of... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 9, 2005 4:50:51 PM
Comments
You mean 1968, not 1972, right?
Not just that, but remember what people bitched about in his 2000 campaign:
a) moving away from Clinton. Well, you know what, *I* was pretty pissed off at Bill for acting so stupidly with a young intern. Was it an impeachable offense? No. Was it incredibly stupid and, frankly, beneath the office? Yep. And I don't blame Gore one bit for not wanting Clinton around -- he felt betrayed by Clinton's lies/denials and, frankly, so should we.
b) he was too craven to advisors in 2000 and never had his own identity. Absolutely. But he's been completely different since then -- and showed instincts on the Iraq war that no one except Dean exhibited at the time -- and with less of a political motivation to voice them.
c) and, guess what. You're right, Ezra. Oil depenency is an absolute home run in 2008 for the Dems. and should have been in 04'. And that's in Gore's wheelhouse. What, opposition by car makers for oil efficiency standards now makes you MORE unpopular than before 9-11 and the aftermath?
Posted by: Chris R | Jul 28, 2005 2:28:57 PM
I think you meant new Nixon in 1968, not 1972.
Posted by: Mimir | Jul 28, 2005 2:30:08 PM
This is only partly on thread, but Gore would be capable of making this message work:
Rick Perlstein on Dems. (I'm being more cautious than Rick in this link title than his VV article title).
THIS is the kind of thinking that we need for a Dem. revival. And then we need a voice to take this to the people. Is Gore that voice?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 28, 2005 2:34:07 PM
How about a Al Gore and Wes Clark ticket?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 28, 2005 2:36:14 PM
(and let me add, with Al From nowhere in sight of the Democratic 08 ticket and Dem. party.)
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 28, 2005 2:37:49 PM
I strongly doubt that Gore can win the Democratic primary. For all the love he might have from the activist left, he is pretty much cut off from the levers of power.
His endorsement didn't help Dean at all, and with that kind of weakness I don't see him mounting a credible challenge.
Even if he did win though, he would absolutely have to be able to move more toward the center (again) to win a general election. Something he cannot credibly do, I think.
I'd bet pretty much anything I have that we won't see a President Gore. Look somewhere else for your hope and don't waste your time there.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Jul 28, 2005 3:11:32 PM
His endorsement didn't help Dean at all, and with that kind of weakness I don't see him mounting a credible challenge.
Has there ever been an example when anybody's endorsement ever helped anybody in a primary? I can't think of one.
Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Jul 28, 2005 3:20:13 PM
Not completely on topic here, but I had no idea until today that Gore's daughter (Kristen?) is an accomplished writer, plus she has been a script/joke writer for Futurama for a couple of years, and even wrote some skits for SNL a while back. I heard her interviewed and she was really sharp, handled herself very well.
Posted by: sprocket | Jul 28, 2005 3:29:56 PM
I think statements Gore made against the President in the last couple years is going to hurt him, maybe not in the primaries, but if he got past the primaries. Democrats want someone who can win the presidential election, after all. And regardless of what you think, the majority of people don't like hearing the President being badmouthed, especially during war.
If in two years we have reduced the number of troops in Iraq significantly and Iraqis are successfully defending themselves, it will not help Gore. Being associated with MoveOn.org may help him with you guys, but if MoveOn's stances on issues are exposed, which they would be if he won the Dem primary, that would hurt him with mainstream America. Remember MoveOn's response to 9/11?
By the way liberal is NOT equal to strong national defence in the eyes of most Americans.
I think I'll smoke a bowl.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Jul 28, 2005 3:50:25 PM
The idea that Gore can more successfully associate himself with Bill Clinton's economic legacy than a sitting senator with the last name of Clinton assumes that we're dealing with more rational voters than generally seem to be out there.
Posted by: scola | Jul 28, 2005 3:55:51 PM
"For all the love he might have from the activist left, he is pretty much cut off from the levers of power."
That's actually an advantage. Every primary campaign turns into frontrunner vs. insurgent eventually -- looks like Hillary will be the former and Gore, implausible as it sounds, could be the latter.
Posted by: Chris R | Jul 28, 2005 4:01:08 PM
Which Gore would we get? The waltzing buffoon of the 2000 debates, or the straight talking war critic of the '04 primary.
Posted by: jimijon | Jul 28, 2005 4:32:37 PM
------"Which Gore would we get? The waltzing buffoon of the 2000 debates, or the straight talking war critic of the '04 primary."
The waltzing buffoon. He was trying to be mainstream and it is not him. He wasn't running for anything in 2004, so he could be himself, which is far left wing. MoveOn loves that Al Gore, but America doesn't.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Jul 28, 2005 4:41:13 PM
I would definitely prefer him over Hillary but I seriously doubt he'll run.
Posted by: fiat lux | Jul 28, 2005 4:43:54 PM
I think before we - m'self included - get altogether too excited about the idea of Candidate Gore (and Ezra, you are making a helluva lot of success), we'd better be mindful of the rather substantial hurdle that is the MSM. As Bob Somerby incomparably chronicles, they launched a 20-month War Against Gore that, combined with James Bakker's final touches in Fla., created our reality today. Do we think they'd do any different today?
Not that the wishes of the MSM ought to have a damn spot of influence on how we pick our nominee. But we have to keep in mind how much they'd be drooling over the opportunity to destroy him again - they really, really do hate him.
Then again, the American people mostly hate the MSM, so Gore 2.0 running against the entire Washington establishment - GOP, MSM, DLC (and of which he is decidedly no longer a part) - could be a pretty compelling candidate.
Posted by: jkd | Jul 28, 2005 4:51:18 PM
Yeah, but how much good did it do? He still won. And he won having run a shitty campaign. My hunch is he wouldn't make a lot of the same mistakes twice.
Posted by: Ezra Klein | Jul 28, 2005 5:03:07 PM
Gore's campaign was not shitty, it just didn't win. Every campaign is filled with stupid moves, incredible blunders and club-footed handling of remarkably simple issues. When they win anyway, all if forgiven and forgotten. When they lose, people call it a shitty campaign.
Gore had the entire corporate press/media working against him. And let's not forget, he had no help from many ostensibly Democratic corners. The left progressives spend most of the campaign criticizing Gore and giving Bush a pass. Nader voters are the archetypes of this, but plenty of center-left voters chose Bush in 2000. Yet, he still won the popular vote and if the votes in Florida had been counted, he would have won the electoral vote. He must have done something right.
I will probably quit my job to volunteer for Al Gore if he runs. I like him as much or more than any politician I have ever known. I think he'd make a great president.
That said, I don't see him winning the primaries. Nothing personal, but as he noted when he withdrew from the 2004 campaign, he would be about the past, not the future.
Nixon's 'comeback' is not an apt guide for the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Nixon's return resulted from a split in the Republican Party over civil rights and the Viet Nam War. His election, which was very close, required a split in the Democratic Party over civil rights and the Viet Nam War. And, he won by very narrow margin, less than a million votes (Wallace, running on an anti-civil rights theme got almost ten million votes, many from traditionally Democratic voters).
Posted by: James E. Powell | Jul 28, 2005 5:24:32 PM
Gore won?
Posted by: Ugh | Jul 28, 2005 5:47:02 PM
Gore won?
Actual votes;
GORE: 50,996,116
Bush: 50,456,169
Posted by: sprocket | Jul 28, 2005 6:17:45 PM
------"Gore won?"
Posted by: Captain Toke | Jul 28, 2005 6:22:31 PM
"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 | Jul 28, 2005 6:28:55 PM
GORE: 50,996,116
Bush: 50,456,169
What does that have to do with anything? The winner of the Presidential election is the person who receives the most electoral votes, not the most popular votes. If the winner was based on who won the popular vote then both sides would have run completely different campaigns and no one knows how it would have come out.
Posted by: Ugh | Jul 28, 2005 6:31:53 PM
If we are talking strictly "will of the people", then it is clear that the choice in Florida was Gore. Regardless of the technical details of the various recount methodologies, the number of mistaken Buchanan votes on the butterfly ballot in Palm beach were enough to swing the election.
Posted by: MattR | Jul 28, 2005 7:17:51 PM
------"If we are talking strictly "will of the people", then it is clear that the choice in Florida was Gore. Regardless of the technical details of the various recount methodologies, the number of mistaken Buchanan votes on the butterfly ballot in Palm beach were enough to swing the election."
Do you really believe that?
What color is the sky in your world?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Jul 28, 2005 7:43:42 PM
You could make a case that more people in the country wanted Gore. But, as someone mentioned earlier, the campaigns are based on the electoral college, not the popular vote. This is a representative republic.
Kerry lost by three million votes, but had 120,000 more people voted for Kerry in Ohio, he'd be President.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Jul 28, 2005 7:58:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.