Monday, February 11, 2008

Why Al Gore Would've Won

Make no mistake. The Democratic Party is experiencing one of its most exciting presidential campaigns ever. For the first time in history, the party will be sending either a black man or a woman into the national election. Democrats are fired up. Ready for major change. Fed up with eight abysmal years of Bush/Cheney/Rove tyrannical rule. Judging from all the polls and the national pulse, we know that any Democrat will likely beat the GOP frontrunner, Sen. John McCain (AZ), and it's any Democrat we'll be happy with as our next president. While some may prefer Sen. Barack Obama (IL) and others Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY), the secret truth is, either candidate will make any Democrat ecstatic and proud.

But for former vice-president Al Gore, the inconvenient truth is that, had he run, he would be the party's nominee. The fact that Obama and Clinton are running such a tight horserace, in a virtual delegate dead-heat, demonstrates the degree to which voters are split. And that would've bode very well for The Goracle.

Let's take a look at what we know so far as to the perceived weaknesses of both Obama and Clinton, and how Gore differs:

1-Electibility: no issue here. Gore was elected once before, when the economy was humming and we were not at war. Times have changed, and he'd have been even more electible now.

2-Ability to Beat McCain: The crotchity 72-year-old Republican is a war-monger, woefully lax on the environment, and weak on economic policy. The much younger Democrat can speak to Americans' desire to end the war, protect the Earth and be fiscally prudent.

3-Skeletons in the closet: none. He's been vetted many times over already. Therefore, unlike the fear Democrats have about Hillary, Obama and a post-2000 Bill, there are no election-eve surprises about Gore. He's clean as a whistle.

4-Polarizing: Emmy, Oscar, Nobel Peace Prize. 'Nuf said?

5-Agent of Change: Gore can successfully appeal to the "change" voter without carrying the baggage associated with the Clintons or with Obama's overall inexperience.

6-Race/Gender: He's a white male with a solid history of advancing the rights of women and minorities. This won't make me popular among certain other liberals, but in 2008 America, still, a highly qualified white male would probably fare better that a woman or a black. To say that race or gender is not a political liability is just plain being naive. You can stick your head in the sand, but I won't

7-The Senator Factor: Gore would've run as former eight-year VP. This, historically, puts him in a much better position than Obama and Clinton; the last time a Senator won the presidency was 1960 with John Kennedy.

8-The War and Foreign Policy: Unlike Clinton, who's voted in lockstep with Bush on Iraq, Gore has vociferously opposed the war from day one. And unlike Obama, who has shown his foreign policy shortcomings on many occasion, Gore's eight years in the White House has given him tremendous exposure and experience on the global stage.

I think you can start to see the point here. That a Gore campaign would've been free of the many political challenges both Clinton and Obama face, which is why voters are having a very hard time rallying around one of them. But no matter, Gore's not running, which is unfortunate. He would've truly united the party and made one heckuva great president.

On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Thank you.


Anonymous said...

Sad to say, we might be looking at a President McCain. Too many folks will not vote for Clinton or Obama.

Anonymous said...

I think you are absolutely right on this, Andy. I wish he were in the race, and I sure wish he had been in the White House these past 7 plus years. How different the world would be.

35th 'n Shields said...

I think Mondale was a Senator in when he was the nominee in'84.

Matbe you mean the last time a senatorial nominee won for the Democrats was JFK in '60.

35th 'n Shields said...

Sorry.. that's "Maybe".

I'm going to go shoot my proofreader now.

STFU & GBTW said...

"the secret truth is, either candidate will make any Democrat ecstatic and proud"

Wrong. Dead wrong. There are many of us who genuinely dislike Clinton. She will offshore more jobs with bogus "free trade", she voted for Bush's war. I cringe at the thought of having to choose between Clinton and McCain. On top of everything, I believe that McCain has a decent shot at beating Clinton.

Anonymous said...

In my ideal world, the convention is deadlocked and they turn to Gore. He then chooses Obama for VP (providing some world stage seasoning) and H Clinton becomes Senate Majority Leader (she's better suited to lead the Legislature than the Executive).

Anonymous said...

Al Gore would save us....he would save us all. We would have free healthcare and clean air to breath. Trees would be greener and taller. Fish would smile more. Al would put on his big cape and fly around the world in a carbon free way to reverse the damage of generations. He would then fly to Mars and stop their global warming too. Those damn martians are ruining their planet. They must have republicans on Mars.

Come on Andy, make it happen. You seem so smart with your predictions and your blog postings. You are my hero and I know that you have no carbon footprint because you are a Democrat. We Democrats are usually in unions that take care of us from the evil republicans and we usually have zero carbon footprints because we are clean.

Go Gore! you are my hero. So is Andy. This is why I'm glad that Democrats vote. Because we are so smart. All those evil republicans that are successfull and make lots of money are stoopid. We should tax them more because they are bad and we are good and they have carbon footprints and we don't.

Anonymous said...

Obama will not beat McCain. Too bad folks don't see that the real fighter is Clinton.

If Obama gets the nomination and the polls are close up until November, we will be looking at a President McCain. Too many white voters will go into the voting booth and vote for McCain. This is where we are in 2008. I believe as more and more racists die off, our views of folks will finally not be based on race. But the big unspoken truth is Obama will not be elected. And worst of all we are looking at 4 more years of the Bush agenda with McCain. Obama supporters will not listen and so they are going to get a very hard lesson in November.

Anonymous said...

The truth is that Democrats categorize every person on Earth by race. Democrats believe in forcing companies to hire people based on racial quotas instead of skill sets. Democrats are the flag bearers of Big Brother. Democrats believe in thought control, political correctness, zero tolerance policies, speach censorship, and government controlled healthcare. If Democrats ever get a chance to have Big Brother control our health, they will then move to have Big Brother dictate our lifestyle in the name of health and Global Warming. Democrats believe in social control via taxation and income redistribution for the purchasing of votes.

Democrats want to slow the economy down, as evidence one only has to look for Bill Clinton's quote, "We need to slow down our economy to stop global warming." (Jan 31, 2008). Democrats want China and India to overtake us so that we are not the most powerful country in the world. Democrats want to destroy our Military, as evidence one only has to look at the systematic destruction of the Military during the Clinton years.

Democrats are anti-fairtax ( because they don't want America to become the worlds largest tax haven for the worlds business.

Democrats are invested in failure in Iraq. If we succeed in Iraq, Democrats lose politically. Success in Iraq is bad for Democrats. They need failure and/or to surrender.


I predict lots of name calling { neocon, kool aid drinker, cursing, nazi, etc } from the liberals that blog here. I don't predict intelligent debate and the use of facts. Democrats can't debate without the name calling, but I welcome a discussion. I just don't expect it.

Anonymous said...

8:45 am anoyn did nothing but name call.

I am tell the truth. White voters are not going to go in the booth and vote for Obama. The racists are not all dead yet. It's reality folks. Don't blame me.

Wake up. President McCain here we come.

Sidney Condorcet said...

"The crotchity 72-year-old Republican is a war-monger, woefully lax on the environment, and weak on economic policy. The much younger Democrat can speak to Americans' desire to end the war, protect the Earth and be fiscally prudent."

-While I agree it would largely have been a cakewalk for Gore, I dispute the veracity of your above-quoted statement. When you compare McCain's approach to the environment with the mainstream Republican approach, you cannot say that he is "woefully lax." You may call McCain-Lieberman a half-measure that cedes too much to the pro-market solutions, Chamber of Commerce types, but it's better than what we could expect from any other alternative Republican nominee. He'd at least have the opportunity (however unlikely) to disarm the Democratic nominee on this issue.

Also, McCain is hardly "weak on economic policy." Sure, as he admitted, economic issues are not where he has lavished most of his attention on. However, he has a strong record as a true fiscal conservative (remember those??). And he'd be best positioned to argue that the most effective antidote to the profligate spending and tax cutting of the Bush years, is a true deficit hawk, rather than Hillary who will be forced to raise taxes in order to a) reign in the deficit and b)afford her health care plan, her energy plan, her new GI bill of rights, her robust education plan. I'm not saying I disagree with Hillary's policy choices, but McCain can effectively counter her.

The Ostroy Report said...

STFU writes: "I cringe at the thought of having to choose between Clinton and McCain."

Really? Then you mustn't be much of a Democrat. No true Democrat would would have a problem voting against the blatantly pro-Iraq war, pro-life, anti-gay, anti-gun-control, small-government conservatve. If you can't see the obvious distinctions between McCain and Clinton, I'd say politics is the least of your problems.

In any case, welcome to my blog, my Republican friend. Not sure why you guys hang out here all the time, but you are welcome nonetheless.

The Ostroy Report said...

Sidney...On the environment, McCain will not impose meaningful restrictions on corporate polluters. Until he does, his stand on this issue is weak. And on the economy, he now favors the Bush tax cuts, has no stimulus plan, and believes in the standard GOP philosophy of small government, which in Democratic terms translates to tax breaks for the rich while we screw the poor and middle class.

Dakota said...

Andy - I agree with all you've said. I sure wish Gore had run; I would have campaigned for him. Instead, I haven't even voted yet today because I'm conflicted about both Clinton and Obama. I have real concerns about Obama's ability to beat McCain, unless he substantially changes his message and gets down to meaty discussions of the issues. Comments from two liberal friends that are on my mind lately: one woman said she would vote for McCain before she would vote for Obama, because she doesn't feel he's saying anything and he's too inexperienced. Another prefers Clinton, likes Obama but thinks he needs seasoning, but then said, "but I love McCain. He is an amazing person," and asked me if I knew he refused to be released as a POW until his fellow soldiers were released, which I did. I visualize a debate where McCain goes up against Obama on that image. Obama has some wonderful ideas, but he comes across as a lightweight, and the Republican base values the kind of strength possessed by soldiers.

Sidney Condorcet said...

I agree with you, Andy, that his stand on the issue is substantively weak. My contention was that from an electoral standpoint, his stance is very strong for a Republican nominee, as his less aggressive approach would be more palatable to a large swath of the (largely uninformed) electorate.

"[H]e now favors the Bush tax cuts..." Well, yeah, that's because he wanted to be the Republican nominee. If I had the time and bandwidth, I'd list the number of positions a politician has adopted for the sake of political expediency, but then later renegged on. McCain has consistently shown a willingness to stand his ground on principle, no matter how unpopular. I have no doubt that should he win the GE, he will not extend the Bush tax cuts (precisely b/c even if he wins, the Dems will increase their majorities in the Congress and he'd be unable to make the cuts permanent even if he'd like to).

Also, I think you oversimplify the "small government" philosophy, and its effect on the rich and poor. In fact, "big government" often times benefits the rich (through enormous subsidies, the need for high-paid lawyers to help their clients navigate the vast Regulatory state, etc..) For evidence that "big government" can help the rich and screw the poor see: 2001-2009.

Anonymous said...

If Obama is the pick in November you will see so many stories come up about him that it'll make our heads spin. We know everything about Hillary, both good and bad, but we know amost nothing about Obama. He talks a lot but says NOTHING. Just listen to his speaches and I mean really listen. It's a pep rally but tells us nothing on how he's going to do anything. Hillary has gone in detail on what she will do for heathcare, taxes, Iraq, environment, jobs etc,. Obama just tells the crowds, we need CHANGE, we're going to WIN, I'm for YOU and everything else that comes to mind but no substance.

Watch the news channels, and watch the time they all spend on Obama, his speeches (panning the crowds), talking to Obama people (sheep) and comapre that with time given Hillary. The media is hell bent on getting Obama to go against McPain and I'm with the others, this country is NOT ready for a BLACK person. When the voters get in the booth they will vote for the WHITE guy and we'll have 4 more years of the same crap we have now.

One thing this country has is a population that just does not get it. They get caught in the hype and fail to look at the real picture, then when it's too late they can't believe they were so dumb.

Our 210 delegates here in Florida are just waiting to be given Hillary 57% of them, if only Dean would not have been such an ASS to rule that our votes would not count. Dean is really in a pickle because he screwed up big time and can't figure out how to get out of this without a real FIGHT!

Sidney Condorcet said...

Hey Johnny:

1) We do not know everything about the clintons. Not much has been mentioned about where Clinton has received money for the Presidential library and the global initiative. I've heard that the Saudis have pumped in millions upon millions of dollars into his Library. Also, we have yet to examine his business dealings with Ron Burkle and others.

2) Dean is an ass for saying florida's votes shouldn't count? Maybe your state party should have followed the rules and not scheduled a primary in January. Had you guys patiently waited and held your primary on Super Tuesday, your votes would have been counted. Seems like you guys didnt have your eyes on the big picture. That's not Dean's fault.

Anonymous said...

I watched the rally in Madison last evening with Obama and once again he said NOTHING. All it was was a pep talk making no points at all. Like I said we know nothing about him compared to Hillary and Bill, NOTHING! Last evening he started his MLK talk and you would have thought he was in a Baptist church preaching.

The Indie's are the ones voting for him taking Hillary out of the picture. When the November election rolls around the Indie's will vote McCain and he will be another Bush clone (Clown) to deal with for four years, watch and see.

Here in Florida the Republican congress of the state and our Bush clone, Charlie Crist moved the primary up with opposition from the Democratic side but to no avail. Dean was pissed and thought he'd be cute and punish us for something we had no control over. For some reason the party thinks that Iowa HAS to be first and all they have are caucuses not even a REAL ballot vote.

Anonymous said...

Andy---Hillary is pro-war too. She voted for it in 2002 and she just recently voted to continue funding it. And just today, she DIDNT vote on the anti-torture bill along with Obama. Tell me Andy, why would she NOT vote? Why didnt she vote YES? Im sure you wont reply to my post.

Anonymous said...

Not only are the Indies voting for Obama, but so are the sexist Democratic white men and THE REPUBLICANS. They want to run against him. They will bring out that he was a Muslim, that his Christian preacher hates whites and Jews (documented); that he won't take an oath by swearing
on the Bible and other things -- truths and lies -- that will have Americans afraid to say his name. The TV channels are pushing Obama because they don't want a Democratic president. Just watch MSNBC -- All of them get their bashing done on Hillary and push Obama.

I'm a liberal Democrat and I'm beginning to wonder about him The other blogger is right. He says nothing. He's all "show".

Did you also notice Michelle on Larry King's show cleverly getting at Hillary by doing five minutes on how wonderful Obama is because he admits when he's wrong and apologizes and can then move forward. And, she looks forward to being the First Lady so she'll have a platform to work from. She wants all working mothers to have what she has. I wonder just how she'll see to it that all working morhters have a law degree from Harvard; a grantmother who baby sits, and a private school for her children. Two big salaries earned by the parents would be helpful too. She didn't really say how she'd pull that off. I wonder if she'll still live in Chicago and they will both commute to their jobs in DC?

I have to say that the Afro Americans are being racists, too, and that shouldn't be overlooked. They used to adore the Clintons but now they're thinking only of race. Shouldn't their racism get some attention?

Anonymous said...

andy---Al Gore is a total fraud. Global warming is true, but its not caused by US-----its caused by nature and outer space. They are saying its controllable so they can TAX us for it. Obama is currently sponsoring a bill called the Global Poverty Act where we will be TAXED. The bill includes a global warming treaty. We are being TAXED for it when we dont even CAUSE it. Its a scam, and Gore is a FRAUD.

Anonymous said...

thats what i thought. I knew Andy wouldnt reply to my 10:41 post above. I guess he cant handle the truth (sorry Jack Nicholson)

Anonymous said...

Gore would definitely be the best candidate and the best president. What bad karma for our country and the world that he has not been the president these last eight years. We all should not have allowed that election to be stolen, and we should not have allowed the Supreme court to decide an election.

Al, if you are listening, please run for President, and you can fix what is now so badly broken.