Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why the "New" Al Gore can't get elected (Editorial content)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 09:37 AM
Original message
Why the "New" Al Gore can't get elected (Editorial content)
I've always liked Al Gore. I like the "old Gore" and the "new Gore." In my opinion, though, this editorial does give us all something to chew on...

At the center of the Gore boomlet is the New Al Gore. He's full of the vision and ass-kicking clarity for which Democratic activists are thirsting. Markos Moulitsas, the founder of Daily Kos, has praised the change, calling him "passionate, eloquent, and utterly suffused with energy." Arianna Huffington got the bug in Cannes: "When people are exposed to the new Gore—authentic, funny, self-deprecating—you can almost feel their relief and surprise as they suddenly come to face to face with what a real leader could be."

There are lots of other reasons that Gore probably shouldn't run, often articulated by inside-the-beltway types. A lot of Democrats still have sour feelings about a nominee who blew a winnable election. Gore never liked the day-to-day work of politics (as opposed to governing) and was a lousy campaigner. He struggled to beat a weak Bill Bradley in the 2000 Democratic primaries and lost to George Bush (sort of) with the wind of peace and prosperity at his back. In polls, voters still react to him as negatively as they do to Hillary Clinton, or even more so. He may provide a nice contrast to George Bush now, but Bush won't be on the ballot, and in 2008 the Republican nominee is likely to be running against Bush, too.

I will admit that I like the idea of Gore running for president. I'm a sucker for authenticity and prefer a candidate who speaks his mind (even my editor has made fun of me for this failing). But it seems to me that the hype about the New Gore poses a problem for him should he eventually decide to run: He can't sustain the authenticity that is fueling his bandwagon.

It's not that Gore is inherently dull. (And judiciousness could be a plus after the Bush years.) The problem is that the activists and bloggers most approving of Gore's "authenticity" also seem the least likely to allow any deviation from their definition of it. Campaigns require tactical compromises and prioritizing, even to achieve noble goals, and those acts are often seen as inauthentic and weak.... Gore's assessment of the last presidential elections suggest he still believes campaigns must be won by moving to the middle, a notion some in his party abhor....

...crusading liberal is hardly who Al Gore really is. He long supported welfare reform, free-trade, and gave a speech promoting faith-based institutions in 2000 that was as supportive of them as George Bush was. How will he handle those old positions? Will he blow them off completely and risk looking like a hypocrite? Or will he revert to the trimming of the Old Al Gore?


http://www.slate.com/id/2142362/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hey! Good to know those losing ideas are still out there. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. How about we take two houses but cede the presidency....
then we can still blame them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. Campaigns require tactical compromises and prioritizing,
Edited on Thu May-25-06 09:42 AM by Warpy
Yeah, right, we saw how far those got both Gore and Kerry.

This is just more hogwash from inside the beltway.

People want a guy who is his own man, warts and all. Working class Democrats are sick to death of being ignored and taken for granted while the DLC led campaigns squabble over the yuppie vote and the mythical swing voter, the "mushy middle" Repugs.

Listening to the "experts" like the author of this article has led to two elections that were close enough to be stolen. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.

It's time to try something else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota Libra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. The Liberals are doing the neocons/fundies work for them. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Seems so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killerbush Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. Frankly, I don't see a difference between them
This "new" Gore certainly seems like the "old" Gore. Maybe I just don't see the difference. Maybe I don't want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kierkegaard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. The biggest reason he can't get elected is that...
he's not going to run for office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. I think this is an odd argument to make.
"The problem is that the activists and bloggers most approving of Gore's "authenticity" also seem the least likely to allow any deviation from their definition of it."

Gore shouldn't run because activists and bloggers don't allow deviation? It seems to me that large numbers of bloggers and activists are going to feel that way toward any nominee. Why is that considered a problem only for Gore?

I kinda feel like this guy doesn't know what to think about activists and bloggers. Are we really so powerful that we can make Gore the nominee and then kill his chances when we lose interest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I guess his point is..
that it would be a problem for anyone, but he is referring specifically to Gore, and Gore has become somewhat of a fairhaired child to the left as of late.

He wouldn't make the argument about Clinton, Warner, Bayh, Biden, etc., because they already recieve a certain amount of that criticism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I think the implication is that he'd be more dependant on them.
As in, he might sacrifice some of the center to appeal to a more volatile and fickle left. Like I'm somewhat convinced it was McGovern's "base" of the further left that pulled the rug out from him after he picked another running mate due to Senator Eagleton suffering from depression and having shock treatments; that sort of thing would turn off an idealistic base. The race was down to a single-digit difference before that and then it just dropped out after that.

The argument is often made that the Democrats would have more support from "alienated" voters if they went further left; my response to that is, if they did not vote in the last election, we can know very little about whether we can rely on their support given this or that strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
10. Actually, many people know of his previous stands. Some he may
Edited on Thu May-25-06 10:01 AM by Pirate Smile
modify, if he runs based on time and experience, some he may not, but to assume everyone is clueless as to Gore's history seems to be insulting people's intelligence.


"Hence the argument for Gore. To begin with, unlike all but a handful of Democrats, Gore, with his ties to the Netroots and his burgeoning personal wealth, could readily raise the requisite funds to take on Mrs. Clinton. Having loudly and steadfastly opposed the war, he could challenge her from the left. Yet on national security, he could simultaneously run to her right, given his long-held expertise about bombs and bullets and his advocacy of intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia; as a putative commander-in-chief, his credentials are beyond reproach (no small thing in an age of terror). Similarly, Gore’s anti-global-warming jihad would stand him in good stead with the greens and other liberals, while his long and demonstrated history as a moderate on countless other issues (from the deficit to “reinventing government”) would allow him to score with centrist Democrats who fear that Clinton is a once-and-future lefty.

-snip-
But McCurry, among others, believes the party “would be receptive” to a Gore candidacy. “Rank-and-file Democrats, in a primary setting, are only going to have one thing on their minds: winning. If people watch Gore and think, By God, this guy’s got what it takes now, it’s perfectly possible that he could be the candidate of the party.”

How Gore might fare in a general election would depend, of course, on whom the GOP chooses as its nominee. But at least one senior Republican strategist for a top-tier presidential wannabe maintains that Gore would be far tougher to handle than Hillary. “Gore has liabilities of his own,” he says. “But there’s just no question that hers are much deeper than his.” (This strategist even goes so far as to suggest a perfect slogan for the former vice-president: “No more Clintons. No more Bushes. Gore 2008.”)

No surprise, then, that the prospect of Gore redux is causing queasiness in the Clinton ranks. For some time, the thinking there has been that only two potential candidates have the capacity to toss the chessboard in the air, altering Team Hillary’s carefully calibrated plans: Barack Obama and Gore. And it is Gore who would produce the biggest fits—not least because he would bring to the surface all the old internecine rivalries and interfamilial weirdness of the Clinton years."

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/17065/index6.html


There are arguments both pro and con, as there are on every candidate.

It all depends on if he decides to make the jump and then we all get to weigh the pro's and con's on all the candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. What is it with 2008? We need to work on 2006.
:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota Libra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yea, some people are willing to bypass the Nov elections altogether.......
....in favor of getting it on for 08.:argh: Me? I'd rather have control of Congress.:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC