Ill-informed prediction

Al Gore will be the Democrats’ nominee in ’08.

With Edwards possibly stepping out of the race, the southern progressive spot will be wide open for Gore to jump in. Gore has neither HRC’s baggage from the war nor Obama’s inexperience. In fact, Gore has hands down more experience than anyone else in the race. And despite the media love-fest with Obama, Gore currently enjoys a very high level of public esteem, especially in the important Hollywood donor community. Gore can also be credibly opposed to the war in Iraq while still having a generally hawkish track record. And the fact that he won the popular vote in 2000 is just icing on the cake.

14 thoughts on “Ill-informed prediction

  1. Kos keeps mentioning that with his star power, Gore could probably enter quite late and still raise plenty of money for the primaries. He’s probably right about that.

    I would probably vote for him this time around, with less hesitation than for Obama or HRC. (HRC’s personality is very abrasive and entitled from what I’ve read of her behind-the-scenes behavior, and I can’t stand her DLC politics; with Obama, I really wonder how sincere he really is.) Last time he ran, I was a loud voice on campus for Nader. What a mistake that was.

    I hope Edwards doesn’t drop out, but if Elizabeth’s cancer has returned/gotten worse, I can certainly understand that. It would be really sad for a variety of reasons. Frankly, Elizabeth Edwards would probably make a better President than anyone in the race, her husband included, and I say that as a big fan of JRE.

  2. Good call Chris T. with Hillary’s DLC politics. I agree Edwards would be sorely missed, as least by me. I’d love to see Gore run, but I wonder if he thinks he can actually accomplish more away from office?

  3. Gore’s a loser on the national level and always has been. Let us not forget, he ran for president twice before the 2000 run and got his ass beat both times (by Dukakis in 1988, no less). He’s a notoriously dirty campaigner, his wife’s work with the pmrc pissed off a lot of people in the enterainment industry who supported the Clintons, and in 2000 he fronted the most conservative Democratic ticket since Andrew Jackson. Plus the Gores and Clintons hate each other and the fact that he refused to have Bil Clinton, one of the greatest campaigners in modern history, campaign for him proves that he lacks good judgement. I’m sure he’ll be the nominee.

  4. I will contradict, if only because (a) I don’t think Edwards will step out, (b) I don’t think any political party in the United States is smart enough to renominate a proven loser, (c) while the global warming deal is popular with the media, it won’t wash with the public, and certainly not as long as Gore insists that the carbon credit market is offsetting his private jet and mansion, even though a number of recent reports (on NPR even) suggest that the carbon credit market is a scam.

  5. BTW, Jack, regarding your b., do you mean now or historically? Cuz there’s the counterexample of Nixon. (And probably others that I can’t think of now)

    And, regarding c., if we’re talking about getting the nomination (rather than winning the general election) then I think the climate change stuff could be an asset. Of course, Gore would have to reassure the union-types that this wouldn’t mean big job losses. Of course, the power seems to be shifting toward service and gov’t union employees where I would think this wouldn’t be as big a deal.

  6. Dan

    The carbon credit trading market in Europe is scam because of poor planning, not because they are trading carbon credits. The European electricity market is not nearly transparent enough to have an effective carbon cap and trade system. The U.S. power/industrial market is much better suited for such a system.

  7. Lee,

    (1) I mean now, certainly not historically. I don’t think Nixon is the only example of a loser who has come back to win.

    (2) Gore’s affection for the global warming issue may give him good publicity and generate a lot of cash, but to win elections one needs something more than cash, publicity, and even passion (look at Howard Dean in 2004). Within every political party lies a very strong caucus (?) that values winning more than any one issue. The Democratic version of this would mount a strong challenge to a hypothetical Gore campaign and, in my opinion, defeat it, largely because they would see the global warming issue as a millstone around their neck in the general campaign. Just imagine a Republican campaign that would tout the cost of Gore’s legislative initiatives.

    NB: I don’t think Edwards will be the nominee, either.

  8. Dan,

    The scam I’m referring to, and which I recall NPR reporting on (beside Europe, I recall that too) is the one where Americans buy carbon credits where promises are made and are then not kept, or which cannot even be maintained. For example (I don’t think this was the actual evidence cited), “we promise to plant so-and-so many trees in a third world country to offset your carbon production”. This promise can be made, but I seem to recall a report where they said it wasn’t even being made, let alone maintained (someone else buys the land in the future, and cuts down the trees to build a farm).

  9. When I talked about the most conservative Dem ticket since A.J. I meant Gore/Lieberman, not Clinton/Gore. And few people know this, but Cleveland was in favor of gay marriage.

  10. Pingback: Iowa « A Thinking Reed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s