Clinton versus Gore: first salvos fired for the Democratic nomination?

[Samantha]

I think that is what we saw yesterday.

Let's look at it -- 2006 is here. The time to step out is now. I know many here will disagree (and that's your prerogative) but I have had this sense for some time now the fight for the Democratic nomination would boil down to Hillary versus Al.

My political antenna went up tonight when I saw the campaigning photos of yesterday flash by on the screen. Both Hillary and Gore's portraits were followed by a stumping Bush*. Gore looked Presidential, Hillary looked challenging, and Bush looked like an amateur. (Sometimes looks are NOT deceiving).

That speech of Al's yesterday was a test of the waters. Hillary jumped in because she knew it was coming and she fired her ammo at the same time. If you want it, Al, you are going to have to take from me.

Hillary and Al have been bitter rivals since 1992. This political standoff for the Presidency has been inevitable. If you are new to this site and are unfamiliar with my 2004 posts, I insisted all along it was Bill Clinton's control over the DLC that jerked the rug out from beneath Al Gore. And I said this a year before the New York Times implied it. If Gore had won the election in 2004, Hillary could not have challenged an incumbent Gore in 2008, which many feel is her last good shot.

Hillary will start considering winking at Mark Warner, and Gore will start contemplating a moderate Republican from the South.

If it turns out this is the case, the money will come into large play. During the Republican nomination for 2000, many Washington, D.C. Republicans were furious when George Bush* jumped out fast and furiously with a war chest no one could challenge.

"That proves it once and for all," I heard a Republican attorney complain. "It's official, you can now buy an election in the United States."

So who can amass the bigger war chest, Hillary or Al? Hillary will get a lot of corporate support, the DLC will support her, Al will have the support of a lot of private money men, and a large base of support from the little people.

And this, of course, will explain Hillary's sudden focus on Warner ....

Just my two political cents. What's yours?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Mines The Feeling That Was The FURTHEST Thing From Their Minds

They were working together, as all of us should.

[applegrove]

3. I'm with you.

[Samantha]

11. It's just "too convenient" to be a coincidence

and as far as a strategy, everyone has been expecting the nominees to start stepping out in 2006.

So here we are -- it's 2006 -- what better day to step out than on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day? There is no better day to debut a campaign, in my opinion. Brings out the statesmanship in politicians....

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Actually It Isn't. And If You Weren't Aware, We Don't Elect A President

in 06. Just sayin.

You make it sound like the Presidential election is in November or something.

This was nothing more than two Dem leaders speaking out at with great voices and incredible words. Looking too deeply into it just undermines their intent. Just my opinion though, not a declaration.

[Samantha]

21. Thank you for contributing your two cents

I don't believe in political coincidences, and I have a difficult time contemplating Hillary and Gore cooperating "for the good of the Country." But if that is the way you choose to see it, that is certainly your prerogative.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Why You Would Have That Hard A Time Believing This Wasn't A

competition is beyond me.

It is 3 years till 08. I find the probability HIGHLY unlikely that they are competing already, especially in the context that as of yet Gore still has no intention of running.

This is way tin foil hattish in my opinion.

[Samantha]

29. I will tell you why

I have been watching political maneuvers in Washington for decades. That's why.

Political maneuvers are done leaving no fingerprints. There is no way, absolutely none, Gore would have let his intentions seep out prior to 2006 -- at the earliest. That speech yesterday was a test of the waters for the money men. Make no mistake about it.

You want to know how Washington reacted. E J Dionne (can't spell it, not going to look it up) remarked today if one roamed the liberal blogs, that speech B E A T I F I E D Gore among the Democratic base.

Now think about that statement. Do you actually think, as difficult as it is for a Democrat to get national coverage on the MSM, that Gore gave this speech on MLK Day, when coverage was inevitable and everyone would be off to watch the speech, that he fired off a speech that Beatified him to the Democratic base -- you are going to tell me that that all of these factors merged together to form a coincidence? I don't think so.

Maybe you want to mull this over a little more.

But I really appreciate your two cents.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. Hmmmm, Let me Mull. I'm Mulling.... Stilllllll Mulling. Mulling Here.

Ok, I'm done. Ummmmmmm nope. Still sounds absurd to me.

I really appreciate your two cents as well, but I'm unconvinced. :hi:

[Samantha]

34. Okay, well keep on mulling

and we will talk again later.

You don't live inside the Beltway, do you?

[samhsarah]

2. arianna huffington thinks so too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2375292&mesg_id=2375292

[Samantha]

12. Okay, so she's paying attention as well

I think that's what's going on. I don't visit her site because I simply don't have the time, but I agree with what I just read.

And there's also the fact I have privately been convinced Gore would run in 2008 regardless of what the talking heads are saying. He's just too smart to let that cat out of the bag too early in the game -- but the time has now come.

[samhsarah]

16. Oh no fair.....

teasing like that. I wish you could divulge more, but I understand:+

[Samantha]

20. I think I missed something here

But I am sure you heard a close confidant of Gore's say about a year ago his thought he had the political winds at his back. If you think about all of the issues Gore ran on in 2000, his literal personal platform, that's a very accurate statement.

And no one has been joking about that lockbox for months now ....

[samhsarah]

22. no i didn't

i was referring to you saying you had been privately convinced. i took that to mean that maybe you personally knew someone who Gore confided in. sorry bout' that.:-)

[DURHAM D]

4. My political two cents - Al Gore ran a bad, a very bad campaign

in 2000. He couldn't run away fast enough from the prior 8 years.

The DLC didn't need to do anything and Clinton didn't need to do anything- Gore managed to lose all by himself. This was partly due to his pious (irritating)tendencies.

That said, I like his politics and am sorry he lost in 2000 and would like to see him take another shot at it, but I don't think that he will.

[TomClash]

5. Too bad he didn't lose nt

[Clark2008]

6. Actually, he didn't run a bad campaign - the media treated

him like a pariah.

And, he won.

That said, I don't think the OP is correct. I'm doubting Gore will run.

[Guaranteed]

14. And, when we say that, he really DID win.

Including the popular vote.

[applegrove]

7. He didn't loose. And GOP has proven quite effective at "Politics". NO?

Did they suddenly get "good at politics" after the 2000 race? No. Gore faced a machine the likes of which we are just begining to see through. Bet he would have done much different had he known. Everyone would have.

Could very well be that both have plans to run. They are politicians. They are used to fighting one day - working together the next.

Yesterday was a great day in Democratic Politics. Whatever happened.

[Samantha]

9. People are fond of saying he ran a very poor campaign in 2000

but I disagree. Many people here in Washington said Gore was running the Country because Clinton was too depressed to do so. I personally feel that is true. It's kind of tough to run a Country and a campaign, but if you look at the strategy he devised, coming across the top and collecting enough electoral college votes for a win (knowing he would sacrifice the South because of Clinton's philandering) -- it was a winning strategy, so how can anyone say he ran a poor campaign? Kerry aped that stratgy in 2004 and if one thinks he won Ohio (and I do), it worked for Kerry as well.

Al Gore is the smartest thing on the horizon, one can call him "wooden" if one likes -- he's just a formal kind of personality. Nothing wrong with that. Too bad a little of that formality thing didn't rub off on Bush*.

[AlGore-08.com]

28. Gore started his campaign 20 points behind, he was expected to loose

in a landslide.

By the 2000 Democratic convention, he had cut that in half, and was only ten points behind.

He was outspent by Smirk by almost 2 to 1 (in part because Gore had agreed to campaign spending limits and refused PAC money, while Smirk refused spending limits). This doesn't include the millions that the NRA and other right wing groups spent to defeat Gore in the South and Midwest.

The press had it out for Gore, and spent a year and a half (the time of Gore's official campaign) painting him a pathological liar based on true statements taken out of context or misquotes by the press themselves. They also painted him as a vicious, ambition driven, heartless b*stard, a man who had never even been formally introduced to integrity, who would do or say anything to get elected. Oh, and he was also the most boring guy on the planet. At the same time, they painted Bush as the second coming of Christ - - only cooler.

Gore also had to contend with a divided party, many of whom were more concerned about who would run the party (once Gore lost in a landslide, as the CW said he would) than who would win the 2000 Presidential election.

Despite all of this, Gore won the popular vote by over 1/2 million. And he won the electoral college too: he won Florida by such a large margin that even the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of Floridians was not enough to give the state to Smirk. The Extreme Court had to step in and stop the state of Florida from counting all the votes, because (according to the SCOTUS), learning who actually won Florida could have detrimental effects on poor little Smirk.

If Gore had really run a bad campaign, he wouldn't have gained points. He would have stayed 20 points behind and lost by a landslide. And if he had run a really bad campaign, he would have lost by more than 20 points and lost by an even bigger landslide.

[Samantha]

33. Thank you for your true ten cents

When one thinks back to the mood of the Country, the anger of the religious conservatives in the South, the number of people who threatened to leave the party, the irrational voters who decided to punish Clinton by not voting for Gore, what Gore accomplished in 2000 was something of a political miracle.

[Olney Blue]

8. Disagree. These speeches were planned months/weeks ahead.

[Samantha]

13. And their respective plans for 2008 were not?

[Olney Blue]

23. LOL- touche'!

I thought Hillary was focusing on her 2006 Senate race only! :)

And Gore was moving to San Francisco to build his business. :)

[Samantha]

26. I think that is what we were all supposed to think!

But we are not political dummies -- we are political junkies of the DU. We know Gore is hovering around California to make sure Arnold does not try and steal it for the Republicans in 2008! We were not politically born yesterday.

And, of course, Hillary is focusing on her 2006 Senate run. She can't run for President in 2008 if she can't successfully swing a Senatorial win out of New York, can she? She has got to nationally demonstrate she has the big Mo going for her. She has something to prove -- and that something is -- I can win elections. Run me!

[Olney Blue]

32. Interesting! I honestly had not thought about Gore monitoring Arnold.

I thought California was a bastion of blue (except for a few pockets, like we have here in MD)

[Samantha]

35. Did you ever think you would see California execute an aged blind man?

I didn't.

Things are not what they used to be ....

[Olney Blue]

37. No. And I still can't believe Arnold is governor!!!!

WTF?

[Guaranteed]

10. I hear you.

I think Hillary knew that it would be good for her to "respond." I don't think it's that pertinent at this point, though.

That need will grow stronger as 2007 approaches.

[Samantha]

17. Many people say one needs two years to build a campaign

I think that's about right if one wants to win.

[highnooner]

18. If Gore had run in 2004...

I think he would have won. Just my 2 cents.

[Samantha]

24. I think there is no doubt he would have won

And I am a little bitter against some who chose to put their own best personal interests over what was in the best interests of the Country. This Country would not be in the shape it is now in had Al Gore run and won in 2004.

I am convinced that Gore, being the statesman he is, will run if he is convinced it is in the best interests of the Country. That is just the kind of man he is.

And it has been said that many, many people have privately approached him and asked him to run. His response has been if they can match the war chest of Hillary Clinton, he will make the run. File this under Washington rumors. No link available.

[asjr]

19. Since neither Hillary nor Al has said they are

running for president it is pure speculation. The media is playing up Hillary just to get reactions from Republicans. Just like her "plantation" remark. That was all the news today and there was criticism about it. That is what happens when the media get hold of something like that. They play it for all it's worth. I feel Al was just so fed up that nobody really was getting out front and telling the truth he took up the banner. The Dems need to make a lot of noise and never let up. We can't rest on this. I would take either one for my nominee, but remember we have some time before anyone is nominated.

[Samantha]

25. Thank you for your polite two cents

but what does your gut tell you? I am sure you have political instincts and I am interested in knowing if you think either one or both are running. The ball is in you court....

[asjr]

30. My gut tells me Al will not run. Also, unless Hillary

feels she can really win she will not run. I do not think she would risk a loss. I would vote for either, but there are still many who would not vote for a woman. Especially an intelligent one.

[Samantha]

36. I hope you are wrong about Al and I think you are wrong about Hillary

But I think you are correct that many people still would not vote for a woman, especially an intelligent one -- maybe a puppet, but no more than that!

It's still a man's political world when it comes to the big leagues and that's a shame.