a defense of Al Gore, and initial '08 thoughts by Trippi
fantastic diary by NuevoLiberal in defense of Gore's liberal credentials, policy acumen, and general awesomeness (yeah I am biased ok?). Lots of links. A must-read.
FWIW the conventional wisdom is that Gore will run in 08 despite his denials. Especially since Warner (the centrist) and Feingold (the progressive) have opted out. Joe Trippi has a piece in the WaPo about the frontrunners (written prior to Feingold's statement). Heres the items of particular interest to me:
I don't really consider Obama, Richardson, or Bayh to be viable. Biden is interesting. Kerry is out - I'll vote for the Republican or not vote at all. Clark and Vilsack are more veepish as far as I am concerned - they really have to distinguish themselves. And Clark carries Clinton baggage, so if he does declare and Hillary is running as assumed, there might be issues there.
FWIW the conventional wisdom is that Gore will run in 08 despite his denials. Especially since Warner (the centrist) and Feingold (the progressive) have opted out. Joe Trippi has a piece in the WaPo about the frontrunners (written prior to Feingold's statement). Heres the items of particular interest to me:
Front-runner: Hillary Rodham Clinton
She has it all -- the ability to raise the money; a political team that's among the best, if not the best, in the party; a strong base of support; and an uncanny ability to avoid political mistakes. And I don't care what anyone says -- her husband is one of two rock stars in the Democratic Party and a huge asset.
Ironically, the problem with Clinton's candidacy arises from her strength. Front-runners have something to lose, so they almost always run cautious, safe campaigns. This almost cost John Kerry the nomination in 2004, and could cost the senator from New York the nomination in 2008. Her strength also creates the certainty that a campaign of bold new ideas will emerge to oppose her. She is so strong within the party that, with so many contemplating a run against her, the only viable option for a serious challenger is to put forth innovative ideas in hopes of breaking out of the pack. And there are plenty in the Democratic Party who are capable of doing that.
The Oxygen Taker: Al Gore
Talk about setting a progressive agenda with bold new ideas. The man is doing it and he doesn't even have a job. In a party that tends to treat its past nominees like lepers, Gore has done an amazing job of reemerging as an important thought leader on issues such as the Iraq war and global warming. If he throws his hat into the ring, he will immediately suck all the oxygen out of the room for most of the other candidates. The media won't be able to stop doing the Hillary vs. Al 800-pound-gorillas-go-at-it stories. Everyone but Obama will be reduced to begging for attention. But entering the race means he suddenly would have something to lose. Could candidate Gore stop himself from playing it safe?
The Champion of 2006: John Edwards
Hands down the guy who improved his position the most this year. Edwards leads the field in early polls in Iowa, which is more important than ever, because the 2008 nominating process is more front-loaded than in prior years. The former North Carolina senator has a bevy of ideas, and is the only Southerner, important to a party that has elected only two presidents in the past 30 years -- both from the South. All of which earns him a down arrow -- because once you take the lead in Iowa, the entire field tries to destroy you. Good luck.
I don't really consider Obama, Richardson, or Bayh to be viable. Biden is interesting. Kerry is out - I'll vote for the Republican or not vote at all. Clark and Vilsack are more veepish as far as I am concerned - they really have to distinguish themselves. And Clark carries Clinton baggage, so if he does declare and Hillary is running as assumed, there might be issues there.
Comments
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com