Gore - Now's The Time?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Trader5287, Feb 26, 2006.

  1. On TV this weekend I see an angry Hillary Clinton starting her ascent to the surface of 08 election politics like a steaming turd.

    History buffs might like this piece on Nixon and on Al Gore:

    Nixon’s ’68 Comeback
    Offers Clues for Gore

    By: Roger J. Stone Jr.
    Date: 2/27/2006
    Page: 5

    Several weeks ago, former Vice President Al Gore told the Associated Press that he “had no plans to seek the Presidency in 2008.” His words were eerily reminiscent of a quote from another former Vice President, Richard Nixon, who told the same Associated Press in November of 1965 that he “had no plans to seek the Presidency in 1968.”

    Many years later, in 1992, I chatted with Nixon in his Saddle River, N.J., home. He told me that “no man who narrowly misses the brass ring ever stops dreaming of another shot at it.” If Nixon was right, Mr. Gore may be positioning himself to be the one Democrat who can defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 Presidential primaries.

    As a Republican, I could never back Mr. Gore’s election as President. But as a Nixonite, I see some uncanny parallels in the careers of the two former Vice Presidents. In fact, if Mr. Gore looks at Nixon’s strategy in 1968, he could end up in the White House after all.

    Nixon’s book Six Crises was a cathartic exercise that Nixon wrote after he lost the 1960 Presidential election—one that maintained his place on the national stage. Mr. Gore’s new documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, thrusts him back to the center of the political life.

    Like Mr. Gore, Nixon lost a Presidential election in a photo finish, and many felt the Presidency was stolen from him. Later, both men withdrew gracefully when further challenge to the result was fruitless. The grace with which each withdrew and accepted defeat was considered an act of statesmanship amid partisan furor.

    Both men also chose to sit out the next Presidential race, fearing they could not win—but both made important endorsements that year. Nixon made 141 campaign appearances for the Barry Goldwater–William Miller ticket (more than Goldwater himself). His strong endorsement earned Nixon a conservative base that proved vital for his nomination and election four years later.

    Mr. Gore’s early endorsement of Howard Dean in the 2004 primaries earned him a new and growing anti-war constituency. Despite Dr. Dean’s collapse as a candidate and his weekly gaffes as the Democratic National Committee chairman, one fact remains clear: Mr. Gore was an early and articulate critic of the war in Iraq and supported the most anti-war candidate in 2004. He has since made notable speeches questioning the war, becoming the darling of the MoveOn.com crowd, and is now best positioned to be the “peace” candidate in 2008.

    In contrast, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the only two other Democrats of national stature who covet the nomination, voted for the war in Iraq. Mrs. Clinton has moved to the center—particularly on national defense and terrorism—and is locked into her support for the war. And, despite trying to have it both ways in 2004, Mr. Kerry could never win the vote of the anti-war left from Ralph Nader.

    To win, Mr. Gore must run on a simple proposition that puts him at direct odds with Mrs. Clinton: Within 24 hours of taking office, he would withdraw all troops from Iraq and redirect national resources to crush Al Qaeda. The election of 2008 may become like 1968, with war protests wracking the country and the President sticking to his guns.

    An “Out Now” candidate of Mr. Gore’s stature and name recognition could grab the nomination as support for the war continues a long spiral downward.

    In 2000, a popular comic campaign button read, “Nixon in 2000—He’s not as stiff as Gore!” Both men were viewed as uncomfortable in their own skin and as awkward TV performers. Both went into Presidential debates the heavy favorite, and both sustained stinging losses against greener opponents.

    Moreover, voters view Mr. Gore as a little too glib, a little too slick, a little too calculating, a little too tricky—just like “Tricky Dick.”

    Mr. Gore must again borrow from the Nixon playbook and reinvent himself. The “New Gore” is more relaxed: He’s had time to think and reflect on the great challenges facing America. In his wilderness years, he has found himself. He is more self-effacing, funnier, cooler, easier-going, yet articulate and firm. The Al Gore who appeared on Jay Leno’s show after the 2004 Presidential election is the Al Gore that voters could find attractive, just as the “New Nixon” who emerged on Jack Paar after the 1960 election was far more palatable than the pale, sweaty, shifty-eyed Nixon of the Nixon-Kennedy debates.

    It wasn’t until Watergate that we saw the other side of 1968’s relaxed and affable Nixon, whose political acumen I admired. But in 1968, his persistence, drive and shrewdness—coupled with a divisive war—drove the most remarkable political comeback in American history.

    Sound familiar? It should, because the stage is set for Al Gore, the winner of the popular vote in 2000, to do the same.

    Roger J. Stone Jr. is a veteran of eight Republican Presidential campaigns.

    copyright © 2005 the new york observer, L.P. | all rights reserved
  2. I voted against him in 2000 but I would vote for him this time.
  3. Pabst


    Clearly there's remarkable political timeline parallels between Nixon and Gore. However there's also some remarkable parallels between the likely 1968 Demo nominee Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

    Both were members of a popular administration through, no other word comes to mind, nepotism. JFK stunned the world when he named his 35 year old campaign managing brother, U.S. Attorney General. After JFK's death, RFK then pulled a Hillary and ran as a carpetbagger in New York and made it to the Senate.

    Nixon had no bona fide opposition in the 1968 GOP field. A trio of Governors, Rockefeller, Romney (Mitt's dad George who was then Michigan Gov.) and Reagan made overtures, but Nixon owned the rank and file due to his tireless work for others during the 1966 Congressionals. There was no RFK or Hillary standing in Nixon's way. I see ZERO chance of Gore being the 2008 nominee if Hillary is in the fold.
  4. Pabst


    LOL. Do you have a political ideology?If anything Gore has publicly reinvented himself as a creepy leftist. I'd say many who voted for him in 2000 thinking he was a centrist voice in the Clinton gang wouldn't now touch him with a ten foot pole.
  5. Gore needs to drop some lbs. before he could get elected. I don't see America voting in a fat president (Vice President, yes, but not the main man).

    We still have 2 and 1/2 years of Bush before the election, and the primaries will likely decide who is the candidate in a little less time than that.

    Who can say what the hot issue will be by that time?

    If it is the economy, health care, etc., the Dems should win easily.

    If it is terrorism and national security, then they will have a problem due to perceptions. Actually Hillary has been rather hawkish overall, but I doubt people will trust a woman, any woman, to national security.

    I watched Bill Mahr this last Friday, and Sen Gary Hart was a guest. He asked Hart why the Dems couldn't just make the failure in Iraq the #1 issue and just pound that into the voters.

    Hart said the problem was that the Dems supported the war for the most part until it became unpopular.

    p.s. I don't think Hillary is electable...yet, if ever. Gore is electable.

  6. Pabst


    As you yourself have pointed out, elections are often popularity contests. Hillary is the temptuous diva. She's gone from wallflower to "it" girl. She's the de facto face of the Democrat Party. Who else in Congress gets more reaction shots during a Presidential address? This past week she spoke at a Miami Beach fundraiser. She made the first few minutes of the evening news. Lieberman speaks down here all the time and the media ignores him. Hillary's a rock star. Perhaps Gore in a national election is more electable. But in a series of Democrat primaries I see him going nowhere against her. It's like Madonna vs. Garth Brooks.
  7. There is a difference between celebrity, and popularity. I think if you look at the polls right now, Hillary is not polling all that well, certainly not enough to win against a reasonable republican. Yes, she has celebrity....

    OJ is a celebrity, but popularity?

    Recent polls have shown that Hillary is losing ground, and while she has a lead over Gore in recent polling, that can change very quickly.

    If Gore is on, and in shape, the real dems know he is much more electable than Hillary. Many dems I know would rather vote for a moderate reasonable republican than Hillary at this point. Not since Kennedy has a senator been elected president (LBJ was VP), and Hillary has no executive experience, where Gore at least was VP during a very prosperous and peaceful time.

    After the last election, I think the rank and file would take Gore over Hillary.

    If egos could be put aside, I could see a Gore/Hillary ticket, which I think would make much more sense.

    I don't believe this country would vote in a female to the presidency, without at least seeing one as VP first.

  8. Im ready for a female president! Too bad she won't run!
  9. I agree with that but also because democrats will prefer to elect a candidate without a clear position on main issues.

    Like Bill Maher said, maybe Dean was a loose canon but at least he had one.
  10. cmaxb


    Never thought of that one. But I don't think they would be elected in this "wartime". People want conservatives at the helm in time of war, unless they really, really, want the war (not just Iraq) to end.
    #10     Feb 26, 2006