czeskleba wrote:
Gore, well... I like his stance on most issues, but I am concerned about his woodenness and campaign abilities. The fact that he was not able to decisively beat a candidate as weak as W in 2000 is telling, especially given that he had the Clinton record to run on. And I'm concerned that for middle America he now has the taint of "loser" on him. It's been 40 years since either party has given a losing candidate a second chance at a Presidential nomination. Out of the existing field, Bill Richardson seems the most viable candidate, but I wouldn't mind if someone else entered the race.
My feeling is that Gore could be the exception to that rule. By capturing the popular vote, and having the election decided the way it was, many people still think of him as the real winner who fought valiantly until the end, only to have the election snatched away by the partisan courts. Furthermore, he gave that heartfelt concession speech that warmed the hearts of the same soccer moms who previously were "frightened" by the mere sight of him pounding his fist into his hand during the debates. The fact that he's successfully yucking it up at the Oscars and on SNL, while slowly and deliberately cultivating a rock star persona with his environmental work, all adds up to the humanizing factor and image makeover that he sorely needed. These days, he looks positively magnetic compared to someone like, say, John Kerry. Maybe not completely immune from the usual hit and run tactics of the Freepers, but definitely stronger than he was 8 years ago. Finally, the sheer ineptitude of Bush, coupled with the now obvious puppet relationship of the Rove/Cheney---->Bush model, only helps his standing in people's minds as to who the real piece of "wood" actually was. Does he pander to the right a bit? Probably. But, he does have his feet grounded in enough progressive issues -- and the financial ways and means to actually run a decent campaign -- to appeal to me.
Also, in my opinion, it was really Gore's not-so-subtle rejection of Clinton's endorsement (and wholesale legacy) during the campaign season that cost him the election. Had he let Clinton stump for him in his home state of Tennessee, that alone probably would have pushed him over the hump. Again I feel, electoral vote-wise, he'd only gain ground this time around in those 10-12 states that actually matter.
Speaking of dark horse candidates, there is one on the other side of the aisle that truly has me scared - (fmr.) Sen. Fred Thompson.
He's got all the makings of someone that the electorate could latch on to. 1) He's a hard core social rightie. Just the kind of conservative messiah that the Fundies and such are looking for to help deliver them. 2) He presents himself as a pragmatic Everyman. That good 'ol boy mentality that always sits well with the more moderate folks, regardless of his or their stance on key issues (e.g. the war). 3) Most importantly, feeding into our twisted celebrity culture, he's a recognizable face...an actor. The type of guy that appeals to a certain kind of lazy "independent" voter. Folks with no real ideology of their own, or knowledge of which ideology belongs to which candidate, yet pliable enough to vote for the "tough guy" they remember from some Grisham adaptation or TV's Law and Order. The kind of voter, as recent polls would have us believe, that claims to value "character" more than a political stance. People weaned on a diet of reality TV and often immune to the distinction of fact vs. fiction.
As far as I'm concerned, he's a real political snake. Be very afraid if he decides to run. He could be a wild card.