I would, at this point, enthusiastically support Al Gore for president — mainly because of this speech:
Gore should’ve run in 2004 and I think he could’ve beaten Bush. Its a shame that he didnt and he became a virtual radical to fire up the left wing. Had he stayed moderate and tried again things would be different now.
I don’t think I follow your logic. If Gore couldn’t seal the deal against Bush the first time around (I know how close it was, but many Democrats felt it shouldn’t have been close in the first place), why would he have done so in 2004 with a diminished profile? A lot of people felt that Gore lost because he was too moderate, so holding on to that position wouldn’t have helped.
The defenders of the Democrats can still find statistical legs to stand on when it comes to analyzing the past few elections. If the trend to the right continues in 2006 and 2008 however, it will become much more difficult to do so.
Nixon did it. People are a fickle bunch. An awful lot can happen in three or four years.
If it matters… John Edwards has a new job. Looks like the sort of thing he could easily walk away from in a few years should the need arise.
True, but we didn’t have 24-hour news networks then.
Kerry has no name recognition while Gore does. I have heard the fact that Kerry didn’t ‘connect’ with the people was a major factor in his defeat. Gore however had 8 years as VP. And in the 2000 election it was 50/50 Gore/Bush with Gore carrying something like half a million more popular votes. In 2004 the democrats were alot more motivated than they were in 2000 and Nader wasn’t a serious threat like he was in 2000, so I think Gore could’ve won had he run.
When you factor in Gore winning the popular vote in 2000, the fact that he would’ve won had Nader not run, the fact that democrats and anti-Bush people were much more motivated in 2004 than in 2000 and the fact that Bush alienated some of his base (he alienated gay republicans and the religious right at the same time) I think Gore would’ve had a good win.
He didn’t. Did the majority of americans know who John Kerry was before the primaries? Has he been tested on international affairs? Does he have an obvious track record of accomplishments people can point at and say ‘he did that’? Not really.
People did know who he was and one thing he stood for (the environment). I wouldn’t say he connected with anyone, as he was a complete stiff.
Bush alienated the religious right? I didn’t know that. I thought they turned out for him big-time. And how the hell would Gore have gotten those people to vote for him anyway? Gore’s name recognition would have been the same, I guess, but his resume would have been diminished by three years of laying low and doing very little.
But how do 24-hour news networks stop a lot of things from happening in three or four years, or make people any less fickle?
the Dems need to pick someone that the Republicans can’t use obvious smear campaigns against.
they had two running for the last election, the “Swift boat Veterans for truth” which was one of the most underhanded campaigns I’ve ever seen, to attack kerry, and the “Insurance costs are all the fault of greedy trial lawyers!!” against edwards. If the Swifties hadn’t have worked, they would have turned up the heat against edwards big time.
the Dems need someone who won’t give obvious leads for the Republicans to start smearing. Howard Dean was destroyed because he said “woo!”. If Clark had have run Bush would have dragged out “all the evils of the UN”. If Edwards runs, the Reps will go gung-ho to destroy him as some sort of “greedy schyster”.
If Hillary runs, we’re going to see “Whitewater residents and Vince Foster relatives for truth”
appearing in adverts.
The Democrats need someone new, golden and untouchable from the smear machine.
Yeah, like George Bush is so squeaky clean that attacks against him were entirely without merit. I like the guy, and even I wouldn’t say this. Yet this seems to be what you’re implying with your statement.
If a candidate holds positions more people favor, he will be immunized to a degree from personal attacks. Bush had this advantage in the last election. Kerry didn’t. All of his positions were taken defensively, and his principles weren’t seen as guided by any clear philosophical or moral sense.
Such a candidate will find that the mud sticks to him more.
No, that’s not what I’m implying at all, just that the Bush campaign relied heavily on discrediting Kerry and was full of empty rhetoric about “freedom” and the “war on terror” , intersperced with “greedy trial lawyers” and “dem gay marriages are EVIL!!!”
Overexposure. It means people get tired of a candidate faster.
And if they don’t find him or her by 2008, they do what?
The problem is this: 1) No such person exists, 2) if he did, I bet he wouldn’t be in politics, 3) it’s a smear machine, you can’t be immune to it. Things you did will be twisted, or stuff will be made up about you, etc. Mr. Moto has a point: George W. Bush was not squeaky clean at all. He had few business successes, there were things for Democrats to pick on in his record in Texas, he’s badly spoken, he may have been a drunk and a cocaine user… and so on.
The “freedom” rhetoric had nothing to do with Kerry, that would’ve been said no matter who the opponent was. Ditto “war on terror” and “gay marriages.” The fact that he was from Massachusetts helped, but the critique that Democrats aren’t as tough on gay marriage would have been there anyway. Trial lawyers maybe not so much, even though it was about Edwards. If you think nothing could have been found to replace it had it not applied, you’re wrong.
Well, I heard some rumors he fought in vietnam, but I’m not sure. Getting him to talk about that part of his life was like pulling teeth.
But wait a minute! Gore has been anything but overexposed. I mean, lately he hasn’t even been exposed. I think you have to be at least exposed before you can be overexposed. The very same MTV fast-cut 24-hour-news mindset that overexposes candidates also makes them utterly forgettable. In 2008, there will be millions of new voters for whom Al Gore is just, “Who?”. And probably old ones as well. All he has to do is give speeches like the one I linked to before, and in my opinion, he’ll do well.
I’m not sure about 24 hour news leading to overexposure. I think the problem with it is that they are always looking for new stories. Same news every hour gets real dull.
But wait, he said what? Who said that? He did what? Quick. Get someone out there. Find me someone to talk about it with. We need news, views, and reviews.
They need to find ways to keep the viewers viewing, otherwise they ain’t gonna make anymore money. It means that a lot of stuff that isn’t news or isn’t even true gets through and out and spread before it can be stopped.
On topic, here’s a thought to keep you up at night, though if it happened it would likely do the opposite. Kerry/Gore 2008! Imagine the sleep you’d get from that ticket. 
In the last four years, yes, he’s basically layed low (although he grew the beard and started giving more passionate speeches, and I think unfortunately some people decided he was nuts).
My sense is that when people are tired of a candidate, they stay tired of him. Gore’s time off wouldn’t really matter, because in the process of campaigning again he would once again be all over the news and the networks and so on.
But that’s part of what leads to overexposure. Everything a candidate says or does gets replayed over and over, commented on by experts and insiders, analyzed, sucked dry, argued about, rebutted… because that’s the way 24 hour news networks justifies their existence. Rinse and repeat.