Duncan posted today on the news that some pundits are floating Gore’s name for the 2008 election. Duncan says Call me a Gore Man.
I’m on the fence. As much as I like Gore, I worry that he — like Kerry, and like Clark — sometimes comes across as a highly intellectual brainiac.
And while I’d rather have an intellectual brainiac in the White House than a fascist dolt, a significant portion of U.S. voters (and/or Supreme Court justices) seems to disagree.
Say what you want about “the bar-stool test,” but the last two two-term Presidents passed it with flying colors.
The last two elections proved that it is not enough to be right. You have to be right and be able to communicate effectively through the medium of television. You have to be personable.
Maybe Gore, having been through the trauma of a stolen election, will be a better candidate in 2008 than he was in 2000. I like the fire-and-brimstone I’ve heard from him since then. But I’m a little wary.
15 Comments on "Gore?"
Rising Sign:
Ahhh, yes. The infamous bar stool test:
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
– H.L. Mencken (1880 -1956)
Rod:
I have a very bad feeling about this, for some reason I can’t quite put my finger on.
Terrence Ryan:
I’m not quite for Gore just yet. I like him a lot but he seems to have a lot of irons in the fire. However, after seeing him on SNL couple years back, I think he can muster the charisma he needs. He just needs better rehearsals before the debates.
Also he needs to shake the whole lying meme the media has cretaed for him. That might be a bigger problem.
Suzy Shedd:
It’s hard to picture him making it to the nomination. But maybe he could knock off I-Only-Start-Campaigning-After-I-Lose Kerry and DLCilary in the process. THAT would be a tremendous public service.
Sir Oolius:
I doubt he’d be nominated, but god I’d love him to be President! Honestly, I liked him better than Clinton back in ‘92, but that’s probably because I’ve got a soft-spot for the rare politicians who actually mention the environment in a knowledgeable, non-cynical way.
Matt:
Bull Moose has this to say:
Besides Senator Feingold, General Clark is the only other likely candidate who explicitly opposed the war. With his military credentials, he could be the ideal “dovish” contender.
However, one major player is rarely mentioned in the 2008 Democratic sweepstakes - Al Gore. That might be explained by the fact that the former veep has generally indicated that he will not run. But, surely no Shermanesque statement has passed his lips.
Since the 2000 campaign, Gore has generally identified with the left. He has used the vehicle of MoveOn to deliver several blistering attacks on the Bush Administration. Gore came out early against the Iraq intervention. He has voiced the criticisms of the left against the Patriot Act. No potential candidate can match his credentials as someone who has both served as Vice President and actually won the popular vote for President.
It is quite likely that a President Gore would have come to blows with Saddam in the aftermath of 9/11. In the past, Gore was a strong supporter of the use of American power whether it was in the first Gulf War or Kosovo. As a Congressman, Senator and Vice President, Gore was always identified with the hawkish wing of the party.
But times have changed as has the former Veep. Gore must now see this vacuum on the left and view it as inviting. Nixon waited eight years for his comeback. After two terms of Bush, might Gore think his time has come?
Ultimately, the Moose is skeptical that an explicitly anti-war candidate can win the Presidency. Regardless of the growing unpopularity of the war, the American people have never selected a dove over a hawk in modern political history. While there is always a first time, it seems unlikely that a dovish candidate can win because of the continuing war on terror - which the American people support whatever their views on Iraq. However, Gore would likely be a strong candidate within the Democratic primaries.
Could there be both a Clinton and a Gore in the ‘08 field? Stay tuned.
publicorgtheory:
I’ll only offer that Gore is from the Volunteer State, with all the rights and privileges that entails. Make up your own stories about that.
Matt:
I have to say that after a day spent reading comments and posts about Gore, I could get into him as a candidate. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea.
Tulin:
Gore has said he will not run.
Explicitly so, I believe.
So I trust that. I trust he won’t run - and that any time of “Draft Gore” movement will not get any wind in his sails.
The nominee will probably be Hillary.
http://www.timsaler.com/?p=103
has some interesting perspectives on the 2008 race.
albert:
Imagine that, Hillary, Al and Bill.
upyernoz:
i never got the “bar stool” test. i’d much rather be in a bar with gore than most other politicians. being stuck in a bar with bush would be absolute torture.
it’s like my neighbor once said:
people like bush because they feel he reminds them of those popular kids in high school. the guys who you can have a beer with and will give you a cute nickname. unfortunately, that nickname is probably “faggot”
acm:
I think Gore has matured a lot, politically and charisma-wise, in his role as emeritus politician and Free Man Who Can Take On The Establishment. He’s loosed his inner liberal a bit. Still not sure he could win either a primary or a general (although you’d think he’d have less baggage in the latter than Hillary, who seems unequaled in her ability to get righ-leaning knickers in a knot!)…
that colored fella:
Is TCF the only one who thinks Hillary has it already locked up?
The continued demise of the Conservative Camelot will cause Dem donors to pass on safe bets (Virginia’s Warner, Iowa’s V-guy), and go all in for Clinton #44!
Hillary/Feingold ‘08!
Matt:
Is TCF the only one who thinks Hillary has it already locked up?
Not at all. But the issue I’m thinking about, via Bull Moose (above) and Atrios, is whether the democratic wing of the Democratic Party will stand for another pro-War candidate.
I’m also very much concerned about how much negative baggage Hillary Clinton has.
The site Tulin linked to above has me interested in Evan Bayh, but I don’t know much about him.
As for Feingold: hell yeah!
Rod:
i heard a rather disturbing rumor while surfing through a bunch of radio stations last night that dick cheney might be considered a dark horse for the republican nomination in 2008. aside from the fact that he’s only one pornsite away from a coronary fatality and might thus not be that scary, the idea of him as president occasions in me the kind of fear and loathing that star wars fans might get when they think about darth vader.
Comments