Which ticket would stand the better chance of prevailing: Gore/Obama or Gore/Clark?
I have no evidence that Gore will step in to this thing, but occasionally even this curmudgeon allows himself the luxury of a raised hope. I like Obama, but the man has only two years' experience in the Senate. Nobody can impeach the military credentials of Wes Clark.
Much of the country genuinely longs for Gore at this point. I think that even many of the people who voted against him understand that they did so for silly reasons. Alas, the electorate often falls prey to silly arguments, as this good NYRB piece by Michael Tomasky makes clear. Reviewing the book The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation by Drew Westen, Tomasky writes:
Westen's central insight is both obvious and simple: Democrats, he writes, have generally assumed that voters make their choices based on reason, and this leads to failure because "the political brain is an emotional brain." The Democrats' belief in "the dispassionate vision of the mind" has an honorable lineage going back to the Age of Reason and is useful for other purposes in life. But Westen suggests that electorally, it's a total loser...
Their devotion to the rational mind has prevented Democrats from doing two main things: presenting their own affirmative case in the most convincing way and responding to conservative attacks. On the first matter, Westen (a liberal himself) cites numerous examples of the disastrous ways Al Gore and John Kerry each relied excessively, indeed pedantically, on pending legislation, empirical data, and the like instead of simple and forceful language in making their case. To a question in a 2000 debate about gay and lesbian rights, Gore began his answer by citing "a law pending called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act." In another debate, Gore muffed a question about "character" after Bush cited the attack on Gore during the Clinton presidency for allegedly fishy campaign-finance practices, including the famous fund-raising event at a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles. In response, Gore did no more than pledge his support for the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill. Gore also explicitly refused to respond directly to Bush's other attacks. It's the Democrats' fear of a fight, and their constant appeals to "get back to discussing the issues" and such talk, that really get under Westen's skin.As Brad Friedman said recently, Gore's style is to explain matters patiently to the audience, as though speaking to a group of fourth graders. I have no problem with this. Others do. Common wisdom holds that Gore blew it in 2000 because he did not relax, did not allow himself to be himself. But Mr. Patient Explainer -- well, that's who Al Gore really is. There's no shame in it, but I'm not sure there's victory in it, either. Westen and Tomasky argue that this persona will not win the presidency.
Can we ask Al Gore to be himself, but to be himself in a certain way? To relax and to speak extemporaneously, yet to follow the guidelines set by Drew Westin? "This above all: To thine own self be true -- but do it in brief, hard-hitting sound bites that appeal to raw emotion."
Hmm. Maybe now I understand why he hesitates...
12 comments:
A friend and I were just discussing the very issue of a possible Gore candidacy this morning. And our respective eyes lit up at the thought of it.
With due respect to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, none of them have nearly the chance to win back the White House that Al Gore has. Especially the Al Gore we've seen over the last few years. The Al Gore who brilliantly and personably took "An Inconvenient Truth" on the road (saw him live in Dallas, and he was tremendous!). The Al Gore who has more ability to be president than the current president could ever hope to have. The Al Gore who can lead us to better things on so many fronts. THAT Al Gore can win. Hands down. And THAT is the Al Gore we need. Now.
Here's hoping he can be convinced to run. He is what we need. The sooner, the better.
I'm torn. I still think he rolled over. Then again, he was fighting two fronts: the GOP and the elite of his own party. Daunting odds.
This fear of the true self being revealed continues to drive handlers and consultants to suck the life out of anyone who throws in. At this point, I think it would be enough to find a candidate who is *real* enough that all you need is a support team for gathering intel and respond 24/7, a moveable media machine to stay on top of the lies and tricks and keep pushing a new message, the truth.
That's all the opposition has at this point: lies. The fact that Chimp can be shat upon and keep on rolling ought to tell us how low we've come. That, and the Congressional failure to shove a bill under his nose and force him, shame him into eating his own dog food.
Nothing is happening. No one is making a move to stop what’s happening. Leadership? That’s what pains me the most. I’m not that impressed with Gore’s accomplishments for environmental education, because by and large, he’s been glaringly silent since 2000. He threw away who he was in 2000. Then he disappeared. Then he made a movie that points out that we’re doomed because we refuse to change. If he took the time to address what really happened 8 years ago, then he’d have my attention. But that would be like giving veritaserum to Bill and asking him what he –really- thinks about his peers. It’ll never happen.
As far as fighting evil goes, I don’t see Gore changing who he is. I don’t see him decisively grinding a worm under his shoe. He’s a fine man but I don’t see him in this race. In a way, it irritates me that he doesn’t just say no and offer some advice to the current field. That much he could do: be our BS detector in chief and pass the baton. WenG
joe, he was a guest at a party i threw last month (tickets to the lunch were $5,000-- good thing i was on staff) and i gotta tell you that the guy wouldn't stop eating for any photos, duoble fisting th ehors d'oeuvres... sure the food was good, but that is not how someone who wants to win the American persidency trains..
and why would he want to run? a) progressives still blame him for being too wooden and to losing to W (who won the popular vote again?? jeb & kathleen helped W "win" didnt they? oh and the Supremes... they helped too , no?) b) if he were to run & win, he would then have to deal with Iraq (and possibly by then Iran) and not be able to do much abourt climate cange c) the AEI and CEI and all the other EIEI-Oh's would do nothing for 4 years but bullhorne against anything Al would try to get across... So you have an ungrateful left, you have a billeous & bellicose right and a war that would have never happened if people didnt allow W and Dick to steal democracy.... "gee Al, sorry we didn't stand behind you and the countrys fallen appart over the past 6 years, but heck, you wanna run again?" Joe would you run if you were in his shoes? Right now the guy is gold, respected worldwide and listened to by industry and government (not Inhofe but hes inHuffing Gas fumes to maintain his addiction) . Why become lunchmeat for Fox?
all that being said, i think Gore/Clark, obviously. Wes knows battles, thats helpful, but did you know that Wes is also the chairman of the company that makes (well, made) the coolest electric bicycles? Gore and a Warrior who happens t oown an Electric Vehicle company? Now thats a fine ticket!
I believe Gore will run if he is sure he can win. It may be partly accidental that he's emerged as a contender in voters minds...his books and movie have put him center stage and people are sick to death of the candidates who have already announceds. They all have blabbered too much and too early. I believe Gore will wait in the wings until the last minute, which would be a good move.
I have never been a Gore fan. And anything negative others are saying, I have said. But the frontrunners for 2008 are trying to look attractive to all factions and instead seem muddled and unsure. Gore is looking better all the time.
Can Gore run against Hillary ?
yeah... who has more dirt on who; hillary on al or al on hillary (who as far as i know never explained why her clients [cakc when she was just a lawyer] who were supposed to be making parking meters in AK were all of the sudden opening up shops in guatemala back when we were allowing the import of coke to fund Somoza and the Guardia's return to power in Nicaragua)... at least Al didn't help 41 (when whe was just veep for 40?) the same way Bill & Hill did....
I'm not sure which of those tickets is most electable. Obviously, Clark brings a credibility on national security that Obama cannot have yet (but, does Gore lack in that and need such support on the bottom of the ticket? Not in my opinion, given the wisdom Gore has shown on Iraq and other matters). However, Obama brings that intangible rock star/JFK persona that might electrify the electorate, in a way that Clark cannot dream of.
But how about a Gore/RICHARDSON ticket? Hispanics probably are a bigger electoral group than blacks, especially because of their western, southwestern, and mountain swing states' presence. On a more merit or credential analysis, Richardson has top tier credentials in experience and performance.
But note well, Gore is not the shoe-in electorally that he should be, IMO. The two year long vilification campaign run against him by the mainstream media prior to the 2000 election has continued, despite a few in that cohort admitting error and guilt and regret. Any major speech he's made, however correct, garnered little coverage or honest critique of content, and rather, scathing claims of Gore's mental illness, shameless politicking, ad hominem attacks on his weight or beard, and the like.
Michael Kelly's attacks in the WaPost (or was it the NY Times?) on one of Gore's Iraq speeches, I think it was, typify the MSM response to Gore. Kelly claimed Gore was so out of his mind, so out of line, that he had forfeited being taken seriously on anything, anywhere, by anybody.
Sure, Gore DID win the popular vote by at least 650,000, and probably another million in suppressed votes, anyway. AND the guy who supposedly beat him in the electoral college (but didn't, of course) has been thoroughly discredited. But I see no signs that the MSM has made any shift in their view of Gore, which for some reason, is pure hatred, contempt, and opposition.
It ALMOST makes me think David Eycke must be on to something, because otherwise it seems entirely irrational.
sofla
I admire Gore and would vote for him, but share those concerns about his interpersonal style. He doesn't mean to sound like he's condescending to a group of 4th graders, but he still often does manage to sound that way.
If Gore doesn't run though, I think Edwards/Clark would be unstoppable.
ok. this is the third sorta psychic event in as many days for me, so i feel something like obliged to share.
one of the other two was personal; the other one was having this vivid image of someone who trained pigeons to attack bush, and finally they do, leading to a hilarious search for the offending pigeons. the next morning bush was shat on by a sparrow. not the same impact, i know, but still....
silly, sure. but here is #3.
right as i pulled up joe's latest piece, i had just caught the very tail end of the C-SPAN coverage of the LA Gore speech, MC'd by Harry Shearer. it kills me that i missed the rest of it, but it is rerun tuesday at 7 EDT; don't miss it.
as i tuned in, he was explaining (that again, but....) in the MOST eloquent and simple terms the importance of separation of church and state.
his argument was based on the influence of the enlightenment on our founding fathers, and emphasized the fact that kings had till then claimed their power by divine right, making any dissent a matter of religious heresy.
but our country is founded on this radical notion that government can only exist by the consent of the governed, taking that divine power from the hands of the king and placing it in the hands of the 'subjects.'
i hardly do it justice, but i have to say, it was a thing of great beauty, and deeply moving. with gore's new book focusing on this issue of reason and its role in our governmental structures, i think he may actually increase his appeal to what so many are craving in our populace: REASON! logic! truly thoughtful debate. no more shouting, for chrissake! no more emotional wedge issues!
so, in this respect, i would have to disagree with tomasky and westin, in that i refuse to believe that even the bulk of humans can only respond emotionally to political issues. though i do agree that there is enough of this emotional element in the public for a large number to be swayed by those who would manipulate them. but i would hardly consider resorting to manipulation ourselves as a solution. that is not a solution at all; it only throws in the ditches with those whose behavior we abhor.
there are certainly many central thoughts to gore's positions that i think the citizenry would respond to, both emotionally and logically. such as RESPONSIBILITY. THE RECORD. THE REALITY. (the 3 R's??) these important concepts (or some like them) can easily be repeated as themes under which details are elaborated as time and attention permit.
but i think it is highly foolish and ultimately insulting to the people of this country to assume that they are incapable of making reasoned decisions when it comes to politics. as for the basic premise, that political decisions are emotional at their core, well.... there happens to be a strongly supported hypothesis in cognitive neuroscience that asserts that ALL reason is emotionally based. (see antonio damasio; i won't bore you with details here, but it's compelling, and i happen to agree with damasio.)
and here is some evidence that tomasky and westin are selling the collective 'us' citizens very short: it continues to amaze me that, despite the utterly derelict and damn near treasonous media, the polls continue to show generally pretty smart assessment of the facts of the matters at hand. evolution and literal bibles notwithstanding, the people of this country can see right through the hype and lies of this administration, and even hold a very healthy skeptical eye toward this democratic congress.
what our people see and want is not altogether emotional; there is a hugely logical component to the positions expressed in the polls (remember, bush was tanking big time just before 9/11; his numbers only looked strong after that event, but have slid steadily ever since). this supports franklin's observation that a well-informed citizenry will ultimately make the right decisions about their government.
ok. back to al. here's the thing. i voted for the man both times he ran for senate in TN, and voted for him happily in 2000. for those of you who think he copped out as VP on NAFTA and Kyoto, consider seriously just how he might have done other than he did. he was, after all, the VICE president, which required that he essentially support his president's agenda. neither of those issues were so heinous (compared to say invading a country or endorsing torture) that his conscience would require him to resign in defiance. i happen to believe he would have done so had clinton committed bushian crimes.
for those of you who feel gore blew that campaign, i highly recommend you go to dailyhowler.com and read through his matchless analysis of the media's mauling of the man; it was brutal, unprecedented, and absolutely shameless (rove, anyone??). neither he nor kerry have the sensibilities for dragging things through the ditches, or even tacitly endorsing campaign managers to do so. they are both gentlemen of the highest caliber and i respect each of them tremendously for resisting the advice of many to do just that in their campaigns. it defies both logic and intuition to believe that the tenor of our campaign processes will be elevated if both parties determine to keep it low in order to win.
the point canNOT be to win. we truly must resist the drive to that agenda with everything we have. the best campaign at this juncture will be to run the cleanest, most open and honest campaign this country has ever seen, with integrity and principle the driving forces at every step.
this populace is so starved for integrity and principle, at this point, i have to believe such a strategy would work. and if it doesn't, then god help us all; we're doomed anyway.
gore is in a remarkable position to appeal to EVERYONE in this campaign. hell, faux news LOVES michael moore's new movie, and HE endorsed gore on bill maher's show friday night. there's not a whole lot the right can say to demean gore, given that he has been more than correct on every single issue he has taken on. moreover, he has taken on these issues - iraq, global warming, reason - well ahead of the herd, so attempting to trash him will only highlight what a visionary he actually is.
speaking of that, don't expect him to make any decisions on this until after the nobel peace prize decision. and don't for a second believe that the committee is ignoring the complete picture, including the possibility that he might run. if he is awarded that prize, i think it will only be a matter of weeks before there is a groundswell that will force him to throw his hat into the ring.
which brings us to the awkwardness of clinton's campaign. that does present a problem. what i would hope would happen would be that clinton herself, along with bill, would recognize the meaning of gore's run, how much he deserves this chance, and how much WE need him. i would also hope they would recognize how difficult it would be for hillary to win, given the long history of venomous hatred against her. it would be so gracious of her to defer to him. but grace has not been an abundant adjective associated with her for too many years (though it once was).
that's what ought to happen. but what will happen, who the hell knows? there is a way in which the democratic party damn well OWES gore the nomination, after all. and knowing that so many democratic funders are withholding contributions until gore finally decides is not just a little encouraging.
but here's a thought. gore could run as an independent. and with clarke, definitely. i have great affection for, and have been inspired by, obama. but not only is he green as all hell, but he - AND hillary AND edwards - they've all openly voiced belligerent talk about keeping 'all options' on the iran table. which i interpret as code for the abundant and powerful supporters of israel in this country. to my mind, that is an immediate compromise of integrity, not to mention loss of logic on the issue at hand.
clarke, along with kunich (and paul, on the republican side), are the ONLY ones openly resisting this notion, and calling it for what it is. so yeah, clarke far better than obama.
gore is a man who has always struck me as someone for whom truth - to oneself and others - is the highest priority. if anyone out there has lived a life where truth at no point has been unclear or complex, then more power to ya. but that makes you quite unique in the world. in my assessment of how gore has managed his life, that is what has struck me repeatedly. so when clinton started compromising, he was a good soldier and supported the man he signed up to support. but he was furious with him for the monica incident, not just because it was so unseemly (and i think gore would have forgiven such behavior in any other man NOT in such a position of power and responsibility), but because it compromised not just their party, but so many of the policies they were hoping to instate. it seriously compromised their impact on congress, and well, the rest is history.
not that these last six years of the lamest and most corrupt congress were bill's fault; it took an inherently corrupt republican party to accomplish that. but bill's behavior made it harder to stem that tide.
enough; i'm definitely rambling. but clearly i have strong feelings about the man. i bought 'the earth in balance' right after it was published, and count his insights there as highly influential in my life's habits since. and he was for many of my years in TN as great a senatorial rep as i can say now that i live in MA. (have i mentioned lately how powerful it feels to have really GREAT congressional representation??)
gore is a great man. he has proven this repeatedly. he has my vote.
oh, and as for that eating fetish. give me a break! must our candidates be 'in training' for the decathlon when they campaign?? i'd rather have an overweight gore than a 'GQ gorgeous' romney ANY day of the week!!! (and i suffered mitt's governorship first hand, too!!) if gore is eating up a storm, i'd say that at the very least he is juggling so many plates he needs the fortification, and at most he's pretty cranked to accomplish a helluva lot in his life, which can create a great deal of tension food relieves for some.
i'll take him; thin, fat, or even ugly (which he's not!). but god, let's take him, draft his fat ass! make him our 44th prez! (no; make that 45th, because pelosi will be president after we impeach bush and cheney. first things first!!)
Excellent comments, good Doctor. The stiff, wooden Gore of yesteryear would have passed on the eats and spent his time shaking hands and saying not much of anything. I think the new, rejuvenated Al Gore is someone who feels more comfortable in his own skin, someone who can be "real" rather than just a plasticized mannequin of a campaigner.
While it remains to be seen whether or not Gore has even a shred of interest in running again, the mere thought of THIS Al Gore's throwing his hat in the ring is quite intriguing, to say the least. While most of us want our leaders to come across as thoughtful, deliberate and intelligent, the bottom line is that a voter's ultimate decision about a candidate often boils down to whether or not there's a more subjective "connection" with a candidate. If that's not there, all the talent in the world won't make a difference. How else to explain Dubya's rise to power? In spite of his deserved "King Doofus" reputation, many Americans feel an "everyman" connection with him, no matter how contrived that persona may be. Sad but true.
No doubt, a much more personable Al Gore will have a far better chance of galvanizing support amongst voters seeking that elusive connection to a candidate.
It's difficult to pick just one great paragraph out of dr. elsewhere's "ramblings," but I especially like this one:
"this populace is so starved for integrity and principle, at this point, i have to believe such a strategy would work. and if it doesn't, then god help us all; we're doomed anyway."
I'd have to add this, that we are not going to get a BETTER President than Gore would be. We may find someone more electable, but we should keep that first fact in mind as we make our judgments. The man has convincing virtue.
....."I'd have to add this, that we are not going to get a BETTER President than Gore would be. We may find someone more electable, but we should keep that first fact in mind as we make our judgments. The man has convincing virtue.".....Fully support....
Post a Comment