Larry O'Donnell included Kerry prominently in 2008 possibilities

[karynnj]

This is from a DU post recounting O'Donnell's answer on Al Franken's show. I didn't hear it - but he apparently named Clinton and Kerry first. Interesting as many intentionally forget Kerry. Here's the link; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2653437

Most of the posts are happy he mentioned Clark, and piqued because he he wasn't 100% positive about him.

[wisteria]

1. Good, now if Clinton would just step aside and realize she is too

polarizing and unexciting, Kerry can lead the charge against the Re pubs!

[karynnj]

3. I hope that doesn't happen for a while

It's clear to me that many pundits are pushing Gore. On the surface, it makes sense. He really won in 2000 and he was the VP under the last "good times". This makes for a great classic story. The media is focusing on global warming in a way they never have - and though scientists are the REAL experts here, Gore is deservably the politician associated with it. Gore was never for the Iraq war. So on the economy, vision and the war, there's a good story.

But.... It breaks down. Al Gore can be seen as mixed on Iraq as Kerry was, if you choose to ignore the truth. His point of hawkish behavior were comments over the entire Clinton administration when he had access to way more information than Kerry. His September 2002 comments aren't far from Kerry's September, 2002 comments. The voting issues in 2008, are likely to be what to do in Iraq if we're still there, a coherent foreign policy and how to handle terrorism. Gore is silent on all these - though if that changes it will mean he is running. (IMHO Kerry beats him on foreign policy - that's not an area Gore had in the Senate or that Clinton gave him as VP.)

Environmental issues have not placed very high as voting issues - if they would have either Gore or Kerry would have won. The media is obsessed now, but their attention span is short. I really doubt it will be a huge topic 6 months from now - though the energy problem related to it will be. Kerry has the alternative energy piece - and even Bush is copying the way he spoke of it. Kerry has also been involved on the polution issues and things like the coastal erosion issue. The media showed no interest in 2004. Kerry is pushing this (and changing the policy in Iraq) as areas where people need to create change and I bet he will after Nov 2006, be more upfront that he will lead.)

So, that leaves only the camolot of the 90s. The 90s actually were great economic times - but the seeds of the hardships of the 2000 were planted then. When everyone was at least slightly doing better, people ignored that the income gap was really growing - and it grew faster in the 90s than before. As this happened, the beginning of shredding safety nets began. The welfare reform hurt people once the economy turned. Kerry from many comments gets this. (Edwards has made it his issue - though he explains it more on an emotional level where Kerry adressesed the forces that caused it.)

Looking at where all three of these issues may be in 2007/2008, Gore can lose all of these but Global Warming, which is his. If Kerry gets the broad technology/ environment/ pollution piece, that won't be enough. Then there's the issue of personality/ communication/ leadership - if Gore wants to run, he will need to say so pretty quickly and be seen again as a potention candidate to lock up people and raise money. How well will he wear? (In 2004, we found Kerry wears really well.) From this, I don't think Gore is a shoe in who will be drafted - the real question is will he accept the pain that will come with running. There's a new thread on DU-P where he again said NO as to running.

[wisteria]

4. I don't want Kerry to be in the #1 place right now. I read your comments

on Gore, but I just don't think he will run. Will he be drafted? I wouldn't go for him over Kerry. He doesn't even look like he is in any shape to run. It seems to me it is the media and a couple of blogs making a lot of noise about him. We will just have to wait and see. One thing for sure, it will be an interesting 2007-2008.

[karynnj]

8. I agree with you - being #1 two years out isn't a plus

I seriously doubt anyone will be drafted. The Democratic chances are perceived as just too good. I don't know if I was too pessimistic on Gore. I almost think the "Hillary is not inevitable" is more interesting and new.

With Gore, assume he declares he's running. He gets people and he starts fund raising. What people does he get? He and Bill Clinton had many people in common. Who can he get from 2000. He's welcome to Brazille. For the others, he and Hillary will compete. Kerry, on the other hand has some key 2004 people who are dedicated to him. On fund raising, Gore likely has a 2000 list.

In terms of the media who pushed him, what do they do? Within months, they will be damanding positions on everything. This is a dilemma for Gore, because the positions of the people pushing him disagree with the ones he had in the past. Will the media still be nice to him or start acting like it's 2000.

I actually think the sheer number of people running will help Kerry and Cinton. There are only so many people with money they want to contribute. Biden, Dodd, Feingold, Clark, Edwards will be trying to raise money. Warner and Bayh already have substantial resorces. Kerry (I think) is the one with the best list and networks. All of these people will be looking for accomplished people to run their campaigns.

What might be more interesting in Gore's case is whether he indourses anyone. In 2004, that didn't help but he has more support now. I can't even imagine who he would pick.

[whometense]

9. Interesting point.

I was just thinking about that very thing last night as I was shaking my head over the apparent amnesia of lefty freeperville.

I personally believe Gore really doesn't want to run again, but the man is not without ego, and he must on one level at least be amused by the level of adulation he couldn't buy six years ago.

It amazes me how much of politics is based on kneejerk, gut level, primitive reactions rather than rational thought. But that being the case, it's obvious that once the voting public came face to face with Al Gore, candidate, the things that bothered people about him last time would reassert themselves - maybe not for the newly converted, but for the average voter. The media, without a doubt, did a huge number on Gore - trashed him, slimed him, and generally beat up on him just because they could. But he ain't perfect. NO. ONE. IS. How hard is that to understand?????

I blogged yesterday about this piece by Jamison Foser at Media Matters. I don't agree with all of it, but this part really rang true to me:

Why do we insist on revisiting ancient history? Because the same garbage keeps happening over and over again. Because too many people -- journalists, activists, progressive leaders -- downplay the media's failings. Sure, they went overboard with Clinton, they say, but sex sells. But it wasn't just sex, and it wasn't just Clinton. Sure, they were a bit unfair to Al Gore, someone might concede, but he had it coming -- he was stiff and insincere. But it isn't just Al Gore. Sure, too many reporters may have been complicit in the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's smears of John Kerry, but he invited it by speaking openly and honestly about his service. Sure, Howard Dean's "scream" was overplayed, but he had it coming -- it was crazy! Sure, media elites fawn all over Bush, but he's just so likable! And John McCain, too. And Rudy Giuliani. They're all just so real and authentic.

At this point, you'd have to be blind to miss the pattern. Every prominent progressive leader who comes along is openly derided in the media as fake, dishonest, conniving, out-of-the-mainstream, and weak. We simply can't continue to chalk this up to shortcomings on the part of Democratic candidates or their staff and consultants. It's all too clear that this will happen regardless of who the candidate or leader is; regardless of who works for him or her.

Ahem.

[karynnj]

10. That does ring true

and I agree that Gore is likely amused by the adoration, especially as much comes from the 5% he lost to Nader. I do think that he might be somewhat tempted - but there's a weird dilemma. It's too far out for the media to stay as hot on him as it is now for 2 years. Yet, if he doesn't get in in the next 6 months, can he get a good enough organization.

[ginnyinWI]

11. well, I, for one, am sure Gore's not running.

I heard him on Bob Edwards yesterday and he could not have been more clear. He's got a lot of good projects going on. He said he never really enjoyed politics, and now that he's out, doesn't really want to get back in.
I wouldn't want to either--politics is like swimming in shark-infested waters. Some thrive on it (JK) and some do not (AG) but put up with it as a means to an end only.

Gore is a great advocate for the environment--this may become his major contribution to the world. He's like Jimmy Carter in a way--has this great second career going which is making a difference.

That said, he and Hillary are good ones to put out there now to take the flack for a while. It's not time to run for president, and they can amuse the chattering classes for a while yet. My hunch is that Hillary will take a pass when it comes right down to it.

[whometense]

13. I haven't heard Gore's most recent interviews,

(blush to admit that I don't enjoy listening to him speak) but I'm inclined to agree that it's unlikely he'll want to run. Why on earth would he? He has plenty to do, he can speak his mind without worrying about electoral payback, and it's entirely likely that if he ran again the media buzzsaw would still be there waiting for him.

[demdiva]

14. Recently Chris Matthews Said She Should Run for Leader

...hopefully Majority Leader ....I think this is an interesting thought. Forgetting the fact that it would mean agreeing with Chris Matthews (I know a lot of you hate him) how do you think Hillary would be as the democratic leader of the Senate?

Because of her history with the party (and with Republicans) I can almost see her being somewhat of a Kennedy .... a strong voice for the Democratic Party, but not necessarily the best candidate for President

[babylonsister]

2. Funny you should mention people intentionally forgetting

Kerry. I just saw this and wondered why he wasn't included in this mix:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1317648

[wisteria]

5. I would say it was intentionally done. Even if the poster doesn't

support another Kerry run, Kerry should be recognized for all his efforts on our behalf- Alito, ANWAR,Rumsfield etc. What exactly has Clinton done to measure up to Kerry's accomplishments and fights?
The poster seems to be just another Dem, that believes in discarding some of our best Dems because they ran and didn't make it.

[babylonsister]

6. I'd agree with that analysis, except for that huge pic of Gore.

:wtf: Suddenly he's the dem savior? :shrug:

[ProSense]

7. Yet, the post includes

Clark and Edwards and they ran before, as did Gore, three times.

[demdiva]

15. Anyone who leaves out Kerry has to be intentionally doing it

He has name recognition and money. Usually that's enough to put anyone in the list. On top of that he hasn't been playing those coy politician games about running ....

[demdiva]

12. That's great

I also don't really mind right now that Clinton is mentioned as the front runner. I honestly believe that Hillary will be the Dean of 2008. The most money, a national movement, and no (well not enough) votes.

[JI7]

16. O'Donnell is a huge Kerry fan

he was one of the few who called out that beast O'Neill on lying about Kerry's record. he didn't put up with his crap and just straight out called him a liar. that's what everyone in the party should have done.

and he also said Kerry saved his life by helping to end the Vietnam War.

[karynnj]

17. That was coool - I think he said liar at least 10 times

It's nice that he said that abbout Kerry.