| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Gore vs. Clinton |
| 2007-03-31 |
| Thank you, my Dark Lords, Rove and Cheney for this masterful plot! Insight magazine reports that Al Gore is contemplating running for president...as the nominee of the Green Party. "Sources close to Gore said Ralph Nader has sought to recruit the former vice president," said Insight. "They said Gore has not rejected the offer and was consulting with family and friends to determine the feasibility of such a candidacy." Mr. Gore currently vies with John Edwards for third in polls of the preferences of Democratic voters, which is pretty good for someone who is not a declared candidate. But Mr. Gore, says Insight, "is said to have concluded he stands no chance of beating Hillary (Clinton) for the Democratic nomination. But sources close to Gore said the former vice president believes that he could present himself as a genuine liberal in any general election that would include Clinton." Her recent purchase of the endorsement of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (he endorsed Ms. Clinton after she agreed to pay his campaign debts) suggests that if this is Mr. Gore's calculation, it's probably correct. The grotesquely front-loaded primary schedule means the nominations in both parties will be decided by money and influence with party insiders. The Clintons have plenty of both. Insight magazine isn't the most reliable of sources, and I'm skeptical. The odds against a minor party candidate being elected are astronomical. (The only one who was competitive was Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and he was a former president.) For Mr. Gore to run as a Green, his animosity towards the Clintons would have to be so great that he wouldn't care that his candidacy likely would lead to a Republican victory. And Mr. Gore can't have that many warm, fuzzy feelings for Mr. Nader, whose 97,000 votes in Florida in 2000 is what kept Mr. Gore from being elected president then. But there is little love lost between Mr. Gore and the Clintons, and if you're living in a fantasy world (as Mr. Gore largely has been since his shattering defeat), there are reasons to convince yourself you could win as a third party candidate, or accomplish something important even if you didn't. The first is that Teddy Roosevelt did pretty well. He finished second in both the popular vote and the electoral college. If he runs, Mr. Gore would be the best known minor party candidate since Mr. Roosevelt. The second is that Ms. Clinton is a likely loser in the general election, whether Mr. Gore runs or not. Nearly half those surveyed in a recent Rasmussen poll said they'd definitely vote against Hillary, and she trails former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain, and even actor Fred Thompson, an undeclared candidate, in head to head matchups. The scrutiny a presidential campaign will bring to her considerable baggage is unlikely to improve those numbers. So if you have an ego as large as Mr. Gore's, it wouldn't be hard to convince yourself that you are the liberals' best chance to win the White House in 2008. The third is that Mr. Gore plainly is a believer in the gospel of Global Warming. There is no more bully a pulpit from which to preach it than a presidential campaign. If his environmental crusade is more important to him than his political party (which is now largely in the hands of Clinton loyalists anyway), this would be a good reason to run. Another factor could be the noises that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, both Republicans (nominally), have made about independent candidacies. The 2008 election could be the most fragmented since the election of 1824, in which there were four major candidates, and the winner was chosen by the House of Representatives. Mr. Bloomberg is unlikely to run if the GOP nominates either Sen. McCain or Mr. Giuliani, and Sen. Hagel's presidential prospects reside entirely within his own imagination. But if the billionaire Mr. Bloomberg should team up with Mr. Gore, there would be no shortage of funds for a Green crusade. Insight magazine said Mr. Gore will "quietly test the waters" in a series of polls over the next few months. But he has a lot of time. By front loading their primaries, Democrats and Republicans have put their eventual nominees at a potentially serious disadvantage. Both candidates likely will be known by Feb. 5, when a de facto national primary will be held, and will be "old news" by May. Mr. Gore could wait until after Feb. 5 to see whether Americans are content with the choices the Democrats and Republicans have given them, or would like another. And if he were to announce his candidacy then, he would be all the buzz going into the traditional campaign season. |
| Posted by:Brett |
| #12 Should be Gore versus Monica...the battle of the blow hards. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2007-03-31 21:32 |
| #11 if, over the Monica affair, he had just come out and said that he would either see Bill Clinton's resignation or hand in his own because he could no longer work with someone he knew to be an unrepentant criminal Interesting you should say that. I was listening to a radio show on Wednesday night and there was a guest from Insight Magazine (I believe this is a conservative magazine) who was going on about how Gore thinks he is on a mandate from God. According to this Insight guy, Gore was forever telling everyone and anyone (including this Insight reporter) who would listen that he thought Clinton's womanizing was disgusting. He went on to say how Gore is an Evangelical Christian with a mandate from God to save the world both from Global Warming and God-given mandates as the President What I found most interesting about this discussion was ...if Gore was telling this to any and every reporter who would listen way back then, (including the conservative Insight) why was this the first time I heard about Gore's manifest destiny? Why didn't that come out prior to 2004 when it would have been as damaging as it is now?? First and foremost it made me wonder about Insight. Why is he now on the airwaves reporting such damaging info about The Goracle? I can only think that it is very possible that Insight did report it at the time, but it was ignored just like the whole DiFi incident is being ignored now, so I never heard about it. Whatever, it appears the the media complex is allowing these voices trashing Gore are now allowed to be heard. Clever too that they are coming from conservative voices so as not to raise suspicion that Hillary is behind the smear. I have no doubt her hand was behind that. Smooth. She's good. |
| Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-03-31 15:48 |
| #10 Internecine warfare in the Democrat Party, also described as "criminals fall out." I REALLY hope Gore runs but if he does, he better have some good bodyguards and remember Vince Foster. 'Moose, I'm sure you're right about there being no love lost between Gore and the Clintons. That said, Gore is an idiot. He could have ASSURED his election in 2000 if, over the Monica affair, he had just come out and said that he would either see Bill Clinton's resignation or hand in his own because he could no longer work with someone he knew to be an unrepentant criminal. He'd have looked moral and decisive. Instead, by hanging on, he tarred himself forever with the slime of the Clinton administration. Stupid, stupid, stupid. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-03-31 14:58 |
| #9 I hope ever so much that Gore runs as a Green. I guess the hatred he and his wife have for Hillary and Bill is beyond description. Eight years of cruel, belittling abuse at the hands of those two creeps makes me wonder how many nights Tipper cried herself to sleep. N.B.: Al has a huge war chest, in that he got in on several valuable corporate IPOs from friends of his, and made by some estimates $300M. That could be one HELL of a lot of payback to Hillary and her allies in the democrat party. Plus, if he backs Green candidates in the districts of some of the more important Hillary candidates, he could end up crippling the democrat party for a decade. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-03-31 14:31 |
| #8 Scylla vs. Charybdis |
| Posted by: DMFD 2007-03-31 14:28 |
| #7 Jeesh - Gore v/s Clinton. Thank God our forefathers set up a system that we will never have to make such a choice. Because of their blind ambition, given the actual power they are both very dangerous people. |
| Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-03-31 13:34 |
| #6 Sadly I concur: I would actually vote for the Hildabeast before I voted for Gore. Given a field of exactly two choices, that is. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2007-03-31 13:30 |
| #5 "Genuine liberal." They mean far leftist, as with most who call themselves "liberal" today. The real genuine liberals are now called "neo-cons." |
| Posted by: Jackal 2007-03-31 13:28 |
| #4 Gawd hep me, but I'd for the beast before Gore. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-03-31 13:10 |
| #3 I'd vote for a horse over any clinton |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2007-03-31 13:08 |
| #2 I would vote for Gore over Clinton. |
| Posted by: Danking70 2007-03-31 12:52 |
| #1 C'mon, Crazy Al. You just KNOW you want to. RUN!!!!!!!!! |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-03-31 12:21 |