Parallels between Gore and Nixon

[question everything]

Parallels between Gore and Nixon

Richard Louv

May 2, 2006

Get ready for the New Gore. It's a mind-bender to compare Al Gore with Richard Nixon, but the parallels are there.

In 1960 and 2000, each sitting vice president became his party's nominee for the presidency; the voting tally was close, and suspect. In the 1960 presidential debates, the telegenic John Kennedy outshined Nixon; during the 2000 debates, Bush was no JFK, but Gore wasn't even Gore – his embarrassingly awkward performance provided the margin of his defeat. Gore, broken in spirit – or so it seemed – retreated behind a beard.

After Nixon lost the 1962 gubernatorial election in California, and his petulant sign-off to the press (“You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore”), most pundits – if not the public – wrote Nixon off. Nixon, broke, practiced law and made money. Yet, in 1968, the New Nixon, as he was dubbed then, miraculously became the Republican nominee – the last man standing, arms flung into the victory sign, 5 o'clock shadow neatly concealed.

Richard Lerner envisions a similar scenario for his friend, Gore. On April 21, Lerner, director of the Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development at Tufts University, sent an e-mail message to more than 1,000 people around the country; his plea for “Al Gore in 2008” is spreading like a meme (Gore's enemies would liken it to a virus) across the medium that Gore never did actually say he invented. Lerner reports that response has been “overwhelming, incredibly positive – well, mostly positive; say, 90 percent.”

(snip)


One more point in his favor. As Lerner writes, “Other candidates, more well known perhaps, may be simply unelectable because of their divisive or polarizing position within the current political landscape.” Presumably, that's code for Hillary Clinton. Other than Hillary, Gore is the only potential candidate who can claim direct lineage to the better angels of Bill Clinton's presidency. And only Gore, in 2000, amassed more votes than any other Democratic candidate to that point in history.

That factoid won't mean a thing in 2008 without an inspiring vision of the future. For Gore or any other candidate, the trick will be to accomplish what the Democratic Party has been unable to do: move progressives beyond their addiction to despair and into the business of hope. That's an inconvenient truth.

(snip)



Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060502/news_lz1e02louv.html

[Placebo]

1. Gore/Clinton '08!

:patriot: This time, it's personal :patriot:

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Logic would seem to point to Gore. However,

it seems likely that the Republicans will actually nominate a candidate of some substance next time. Whoever it is, their candidate will almost certainly be better equipped for the presidency than the candidate they beat Gore with in 2000. ( Yes, Gore got more votes.)

The question will be asked: if he couldn't beat Bush, how is he going to beat McCain, Frist, Rice, whomever?

Added factor: the 'news' media is hostile to Gore as it is hostile to no other.

All that said: he's the obvious favorite for the nomination.

[bowens43]

3. Well......

Nixon lost to JFK, Gore lost to the fucking idiot.

Gore lost to the idiot. Gore would be annihilated if he had to run against a real candidate. Any campaign that includes Clinton is a sure loser.

[AtomicKitten]

4. the only thing Gore lost was a 5:4 judicial coup d'etat

and if you can't see Gore's spectacular resurrection as of late, you aren't paying attention. Gore has evolved into a formidable populist.

Including Clinton would cause more distraction than necessary, so don't hold your breath on her condescending to a VP slot. However, Feingold, Clark, or Obama as VP would be brilliant.

RE-ELECT GORE IN 2008.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Had me worried when I read the title; going WTF. But then I read what

the guy was saying and 'yes' there is a parallel.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Gore did not lose the debates either.

The MSM lied about that overnight overruling their own reporting and focus groups.