Gore
February 3, 2002 11:09 PM   Subscribe

Gore is back. Discuss.
posted by panopticon (86 comments total)

 
It definitely sounds like he's going to run in 2004. Some of the speeches he's making now might have helped him in 2000. And, now more than ever, he needs to lose the beard.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:15 PM on February 3, 2002


Sorry for the memepool-style link, I couldn't help myself, I know they're all very similar articles...

Suggestions for this thread: no unnecessary/snarky/vicious Bush/Clinton/Gore/Nader-bashing.
posted by panopticon at 11:15 PM on February 3, 2002


gore is a bore. bush is a retard.

Anyway, the beard rocks. He'll never get elected with it, of course. Who was the last US leader with facial hair anyway, taft? (5 points to the first one who remembers who the last learder of germany with facial hair was)
posted by delmoi at 11:17 PM on February 3, 2002


I find it ironic that the CNN link that you posted begins with http://robots.cnn.com/...
posted by Sal Amander at 11:23 PM on February 3, 2002


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Gore should cool his anti-Bush rhetoric for another year or two. His backing of House and Senate Democrats was expected, of course, but I'm pretty sure he should wait for Bush to sink his own ship. That, and play negative attention closer to his own election (2004 Presidential). Something tells me that if he bashes Bush now and his (Bush) approval stay high, Gore will have no chance in 2004.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:29 PM on February 3, 2002


The beard is wicked.
posted by tcobretti at 11:32 PM on February 3, 2002


Nader!
posted by acridrabbit at 11:32 PM on February 3, 2002


(sidenote: Gorebot cartoon from Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World.
posted by panopticon at 11:34 PM on February 3, 2002


Right on, BlueTrain. I think given time and elections in 2002, he'll have a much better leg to stand on than he does now. Of course, what with the Enron, this may be a good time to "strike the hammerblow," so to speak.
posted by j.edwards at 11:35 PM on February 3, 2002


I like that Gore's back in action, and hope he has someone more like Carville than Brazille behind him working the machine. When I look at the prospect of Daschle, Gephardt, Leiberman - Gore looks that much more polished and smart.
posted by owillis at 11:36 PM on February 3, 2002


Gore should be president now. I'd gladly vote for him again. I don't care what his personality is like. I don't care if he is the most boring motherfucker on earth. I want policy I agree with. At least a robot can compute.
posted by McBain at 11:53 PM on February 3, 2002


Anyone else enjoy the irony of a Gore story being printed on robots.cnn.com?
posted by milnak at 11:55 PM on February 3, 2002


Okay. My first resolution for the new year is to read all of the replies before posting a snarky response.
posted by milnak at 11:56 PM on February 3, 2002


[obligatorysnarkyconservativeresponse] Someone wake me when the Dems have someone and/or something new to offer. Zzzzzzzzzzzz. [/obresponse]
posted by Dreama at 12:04 AM on February 4, 2002


No matter how many times I am offered pumpkin pie, it will always taste better than sewer rat.
posted by McBain at 12:22 AM on February 4, 2002


Heh, do the same for me with the GOP. It's not like any viable candidates are going to ever have anything new (read: single-member district plurality voting slowly choking off new ideas).
posted by j.edwards at 12:23 AM on February 4, 2002


I forget quite who recently said it, (may have been fuckwit Christopher Hitchens, or slightly less wit but just as much fuck George Stephanopoulos) but I agree :
"Gore has done the one unforgivable in politics, he has lost the easily won," or words to that effect.
You don't bounce back from being the lesser of two uninspiring choices.
Stick a fork in him, kids, he's done.
posted by dong_resin at 12:26 AM on February 4, 2002


Not that I totally dislike the guy, but he's clearly toast.
posted by dong_resin at 12:28 AM on February 4, 2002


dong_resin- That may be the reality of politics, but there is no reason it should be an ideal or rule. It boggles my mind that someone would get into the booth and say, "I agree with Gore's politics but how could he have lost in 2000!? What a dumbass! I'm voting for the other guy."

Not only am I expecting too much from the average voter, but I am deluding myself about political realities (monetary and political support being integral to winning the almost meaningless election.)
posted by McBain at 12:33 AM on February 4, 2002


I'm glad to see Gore back. I had hoped that he would lay low for a while and do some soul-searching, something I believe him capable of. He was given a chance to step back and reevaluate the screwups and misteps that, more than anything else, cost him the election. In mid-2000, Gore was set for a landslide but (ignoring for a moment the Supreme Court election outcome) one of the most astoundingly crappy campaigns in recent history handed GWB 50% of the vote. Well, that and all the money from Enron's employee's pensions paying for "Rats" ads.

I think this is good timing. If Enron's involvement with the white house is as deep as Cheney seems to be hiding, things are gonna get nasty. If the administration seems corrupt and Gore is visible, it won't be long before the word 'illegitimate' starts sneaking out. Remember that the purported Energy Commission meetings were taking place at the same time Enron was jacking prices for California's power. No one will care that Gray Davis may or may not have screwed up or that the California de-reg plan was stupid. Blame clings to the guilty and Enron has seems to have earned their fly-paper status.

All that said, I'd take Clinton back in a heartbeat. (had to throw that in)
posted by joemaller at 1:17 AM on February 4, 2002


He gets mad points for the goatee in my book.
posted by tiger yang at 1:20 AM on February 4, 2002


Relevant idea futures prices (bid/ask/last):

Bush wins in 2004: 46/47/47
Democrat wins in 2004: 44/45/46
Gore wins in 2004: 6/11/6
Clinton wins in 2004: 3/4/2 (Hillary)

Implies players think Gore isn't going to get the Democratic nomination.

The IF game has very light trading and isn't real money, but I find it interesting nonetheless. I'd love to see a real money version, moreso for gambling on scientific questions than politics.
posted by mlinksva at 2:11 AM on February 4, 2002


I think the beard is the key - it should totally stay, it's a retro-style USP (bit like that angle poise lamp thang going on with the new I-mac). I never quite get the contradiction between Gore the hard-faced, cynical Beltway pol - just read Al Gore: a user's manual for a real catalogue of shame - and Al Gore the eco-spiritualist and polymath uber-nerd. I find the guy endlessly fascinating - and I do wish that he was in the White House at the moment: I don't think he'd have been any less direct than Bush in military action, but I think he would be more visionary and intelligent about "winning the peace" than Georgie boy. And somehow, the beard ties it all together. I'm watching this space carefully.
posted by theplayethic at 2:41 AM on February 4, 2002


Politics has become as much about theatre as governance. I personally am looking forward, with almost guilty pleasure, to an Al Gore / Hillary Clinton presidential primary.
posted by MidasMulligan at 4:56 AM on February 4, 2002


Gore lost the easily won? There's a great deal of evidence to the contrary, but the Supreme Court chose not to be swayed by evidence.
posted by UnReality at 5:22 AM on February 4, 2002


It's been counted and recounted ad nauseum. The man LOST! Give it up, he self imploded into a box of Twinkies!Okay, maybe several boxes ;-) Excuse me while I go feed the elephant . . .
posted by RunsWithBandageScissors at 5:29 AM on February 4, 2002


Unreality: if he'd been competent he would have won the election going away. But he wasn't competent, and so it came down to absentee ballots. That's what Stephanopolous and other political analysts care about, not the statistically insignificant coin flip that was Florida.
posted by louie at 5:38 AM on February 4, 2002


Gore has to resurface now if he has any thoughts of running for president, because Democrats are going to remember who worked for them in the Congressional races of 2002.

Also, Bush's presidency will be judged on how well his party does in those races -- if he breaks even or gains seats, reversing the normal trend, it would be a devastating loss for the Democrats.

I'd gladly vote to re-elect Gore in 2004, and I think most Democratic loyalists feel the same way. The nomination is his if he wants it.
posted by rcade at 5:51 AM on February 4, 2002


Midas: Politics has become as much about theatre as governance.

Politics has become as much about marketing as governamce and the reelect gore in two-thousand-four! tagline is hard to beat.

I think he could take it.

The tagline is so easy to chant at speeches and Gore can really play it up during the campaign. "You, the American people, chose me to be your president. Now I'm here to do the job..." etc, etc.
posted by zpousman at 6:09 AM on February 4, 2002


Gore is back

Is he dancing?
He's funny when he's dancing!

Is he taking credit for others work again? *cough*iinventedtheinternet*cough*
He's not funny when he's taking credit for others work.
posted by Trik at 6:24 AM on February 4, 2002


yes, joe, i miss bill clinton too. i've been missing him since he left and especially since 'the tragedy'. how i did yearn to hear his voice on the morning of september 11th (and how my mother did smack me for expressing such feelings).

it shouldn't matter to us anyway, my friend; we'll both be jailed soon enough.
posted by mlang at 6:48 AM on February 4, 2002


Nader! or Browne! or Ventura! Or ANYONE ELSE besides the same fuckos from the same two parties. ANYONE ELSE! I am sick to death of the esconced power structure lording it up and forcing smaller party candidates to dance outside the bandstand. It's time we had a real change of scenery in DC. Five percent of the popular vote my ass.
posted by UncleFes at 6:49 AM on February 4, 2002


I think we might be caught in some sort of loop, and the only two presidential candidates who ever run again will be Gore and Bush. Make it stop!
posted by Ty Webb at 7:05 AM on February 4, 2002


Actually, I think his timing is perfect, and I'm impressed he figured it out. As it stands, he is still the front-runner for the 2004 nomination, so he needs to get working. He has plenty to talk about regarding the economy that he can still support the war while criticizing the administration.

One aside related to all the 'robot' comments: I've seen both Gore and Bush speak in person, and what struck me was that in person, Gore seems much more warm and genuine and, well, human than he comes across on TV. On the other hand, GWB comes across in person as a very little man with a really giant head (literally, although I suppose I could say that figuratively too...). He is not interesting at all to watch in person, and in fact, he barely even looks at the people he's talking too, instead staring intently at his notes, the teleprompter or the cameras in the back of the room. You know how when he gives a speech and during applause he makes sort of a smug look off to the side? I always thought he was looking at his wife or someone... in reality, he looks away toward blank walls or far corners of the ceiling, as if he's scared to look at the people he's talking to. But I guess all of that makes him come across on TV better, and I s'pose that's what he's going for, eh?
posted by spilon at 7:11 AM on February 4, 2002


Gore was set for a landslide but ... all the money from Enron's employee's pensions paying for "Rats" ads.

It's true! I was planning to vote for Gore, but when I realized that "democrats" contains the word "rats" I said, no way am I voting for that guy!
posted by straight at 7:16 AM on February 4, 2002


RE-ELECT GORE IN '04
posted by Ben Grimm at 7:25 AM on February 4, 2002


dong_resin/clavdivs in '04

You could do a LOT worse. You already have.
posted by UncleFes at 7:39 AM on February 4, 2002


bush and ashcroft and rotting out the country from the inside, and the best anyone can say against gore is that he's boring? I know he's not the best candidate to ever hit the ticket, but anythings better than a monkey and a zombie!
posted by mcsweetie at 7:56 AM on February 4, 2002


but anythings better than a monkey and a zombie!

I dunno, I think a giraffe and a pipewrench would be much worse. Or a boiled egg and some leeches.
posted by Ty Webb at 8:02 AM on February 4, 2002


boiled egg and some leeches in '04!
posted by UncleFes at 8:06 AM on February 4, 2002


i was watching nader on booknotes last nite and he was talking about gore's "disingenuousness" which he cited as a reason for his loss. he also cited that the top four advisors of gore's inner-circle or whatever were comprised of corporate lobbyists for like the tobacco and healthcare industries.
posted by kliuless at 8:11 AM on February 4, 2002


Finally, we can have a robotic president, just as Skynet intended.
(but seriously. Dude, you blew it. You blew it long before the hanging chad debacle. I'd be damn surprised if you got the nomination.)
posted by darukaru at 8:18 AM on February 4, 2002


I think a Gore '04 campaign is inevitable. The cheesy drama is there for the media to exploit (REMATCH! Gore's back, and he's ready to take the title!), and Gore's been carefulto law low but still stay on the radar of the celebrity-obssessed press. Whoever advised him to grow the beard deserves some credit for that. Maybe he dumped Naomi Wolf and hired Camille Paglia.

Also unfortunately, and I offer this as a Nader supporter and defender, it looks like Ralph is gearing up to go again. That would be strange. Maybe they let him debate this time?

Somebody make sure Pat Buchanan has something else to do.
posted by Ty Webb at 8:29 AM on February 4, 2002


scuse me:
...Gore's been careful to lay low but still...
posted by Ty Webb at 8:30 AM on February 4, 2002


[*cough*iinventedtheinternet*cough*]

Look, I don't like Gore in the least but we don't need to make up things to disagree with him on. Gore NEVER said he invented the internet. Anyone who read the transcript knows better... During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
posted by revbrian at 8:31 AM on February 4, 2002


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Gore should cool his anti-Bush rhetoric for another year or two. His backing of House and Senate Democrats was expected, of course, but I'm pretty sure he should wait for Bush to sink his own ship.

I think you're wrong. Such a wait-and-see attitude, while perhaps effective, would underscore his reputation as weak and wishy-washy and lacking the will to lead, which I think is what kept his win in 2000 small enough that it could be stolen. He needs to take a risk, make a stand. If he comes out now to publicly stand as Bush's detractor and conscience, he will seem prescient and an ethical crusader when Bush self-destructs. If Bush somehow wriggles through till '04, then Gore will STILL have managed to distinguish himself from Bush, which he failed to do adequately last time.

And he should definitely KEEP the beard. He, more than most politicians (see the posts in this very thread) needs the humanizing effect that it lends, and he could do worse than to identify himself with some of our old-school, beard-wearing presidents.
posted by rushmc at 8:35 AM on February 4, 2002


Nader! or Browne! or Ventura! Or ANYONE ELSE besides the same fuckos from the same two parties. ANYONE ELSE! I am sick to death of the esconced power structure lording it up and forcing smaller party candidates to dance outside the bandstand. It's time we had a real change of scenery in DC.

And you call yourself a "conservative!" Welcome to the ranks of freethinking independence, my brother! :)
posted by rushmc at 8:37 AM on February 4, 2002


Barring the obvious attractions of the boiled egg and leeches ticket, I think Gore's going to have a fight getting squeezing the nomination away from Daschle. From a party standpoint, Gore is damaged goods after his "defeat" to Bush (realistically, Gore should have trounced Bush so thoroughly that counting the votes should have been a formality); by putting Gore back in the hotseat, the Democratic Party is ostensibly saying that they have no one better than him, which isn't the case, nor is it the message they want to send. I don't think Gore is the fundraising legend he used to be, either. And taking into account that Nader will be back and has opened the door somewhat for other third-party candidates, the opportunities for more spoilerism from the left will be increased. Do you think that those who voted for Nader (confession time, rushmc: I voted Nader! I am a fairly atypical conservative, I suppose) will vote for Gore this time around... or do you think the reverse is possible? Daschle will get the nod; the VP slot is a question, but I don't think Gore will sit backseat again. Gore, I think, would be better off re-running for Senate (where's he's comfortable and can do the work he's capable of) or for Governor of Tennessee (which is arguably a better position, power-wise).
posted by UncleFes at 8:46 AM on February 4, 2002


RunsWithBandageScissors! Nice handle, Sheri.
Oh God, I'm socializing...

*cough*what revbriansaid about inventing internet*cough*
posted by y2karl at 8:49 AM on February 4, 2002


John Edwards '04!
posted by brucec at 8:49 AM on February 4, 2002


Addendum: Personally, I'd like to see an African-American VP candidate on the Dem ticket. It's time. But who? Waters, maybe?
posted by UncleFes at 8:50 AM on February 4, 2002


Candidacy or not, it's good that Gore is back. America needs more high profile personalities critiquing dubya's reign. Too many of our elected leaders are staying quiet to protect their jobs come election time. Gore's got little to lose and everything to gain by being provocative. For me, the more he speaks his mind, the better candidate he becomes.
posted by neuroshred at 8:53 AM on February 4, 2002


revbrian,

your defense of Gore given your opinions is admirable. But I think that his handling of the very statement shows why he can't be the candidate, even though i think he'd make a good, forward-thinking President. He thinks well, he just can't convey what he is thinking very well, either in spoken or body language. Gore reached the zenith of his career as Vice President.
posted by brucec at 8:54 AM on February 4, 2002


i saw this article in newsweek about young up-and-comer harold ford jr.
posted by kliuless at 9:05 AM on February 4, 2002


I wish Gore would go back to wherever he came back from. He lost, and even if you don't think he lost, the election was his to win with a landslide and he sucked so bad, he didn't win with a landslide. I can't stand the guy, and I voted for him!

We need new blood. We need a third party candidate that isn't crazy (read: Perot) or completely out of touch with reality (read: Nader) but who gives real competition and a real choice. I too am so damn sick of the two parties battling it out for the most money, not giving a shit about the voters.

We need a new candidate, not tired old Gore.
posted by aacheson at 9:07 AM on February 4, 2002


He thinks well, he just can't convey what he is thinking very well, either in spoken or body language.

Which puts him one up on Mr. Bush.
posted by rushmc at 9:13 AM on February 4, 2002


Personally, I'd like to see an African-American VP candidate on the Dem ticket. It's time. But who? Waters, maybe?

Maxine Waters? Good God Fes, put down the bong.

For the folks complaining about "the two parties", it seems that in this "democracy" the majority of folks just don't agree with you. The beloved Nader couldn't even muster enough for matching funds, while the other third parties did even worse. Perhaps America just really doesn't want to rock the boat - no matter how important you feel your personal ideaology may be?

And I'm sorry, but I find Tom Daschle to probably be the least inspiring political leader ever.
posted by owillis at 9:13 AM on February 4, 2002


He lost, and even if you don't think he lost, the election was his to win with a landslide and he sucked so bad, he didn't win with a landslide.

Which is utterly irrelevant, despite being oft-repeated. A win by one vote is still a win. You cannot penalize someone for not winning by the margin that you expected or predicted.
posted by rushmc at 9:14 AM on February 4, 2002


It's been counted and recounted ad nauseum. The man LOST! Give it up, he self imploded into a box of Twinkies!Okay, maybe several boxes

A meaningless argument. The process in Florida should have been left to work itself out under Florida's laws. It wasn't. The SC ruling was a scandal on the merits.

Personally, I'd like to see an African-American VP candidate on the Dem ticket. It's time. But who?


Yes, but who. There isn't anyone good. As long as the major media continue to look to jokers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the contemptable Louis Farrakhan for the black perspective, white America will never take black politicians seriously. It is amazing that the liberal media doesn't see how they sabotage blacks in mainstream politics.
posted by McBain at 9:17 AM on February 4, 2002


I was wondering about the Maxine Waters reference myself, owillis--was that some sort of subtle troll? Muddy Waters, I could see-but he's been dead for years. *picks bong back up*
posted by y2karl at 9:19 AM on February 4, 2002


All I can say is, don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
posted by UnReality at 9:21 AM on February 4, 2002


A brief history of Presidential Facial Hair:

There was no Presidential Facial hair (except for sideburns on John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren) until Abraham Lincoln. After Lincoln, every president had either a beard and/or moustache, with the exceptions of Andrew Johnson and William McKinley. William Howard Taft was the last US President to have any facial hair whatsoever (with the possible exception of Richard Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow).
posted by evanizer at 9:22 AM on February 4, 2002


[John Edwards '04!]

That does seem to be the 'buzz' amongst the chattering classes... "A senior White House official, asked which Democrat now seems most formidable, picks Edwards, describing him as a Southern politician who is more charismatic than Gephardt or Daschle, less liberal than Kerry and a fresher face than Gore."


[(Gore)... thinks well, he just can't convey what he is thinking very well, either in spoken or body language]

Hey, IMHO Gore running again is the best shot at a second term Bush has. Of course, that all is so far off it's impossible to guess right now.
posted by revbrian at 9:28 AM on February 4, 2002


We DO need a third party in this country, but it needs to be conservative. A conservative third party would split the republican party and create a consistent democrat majority (basically the opposite of what Nader wants to do). I wish the libertarians weren't so kooky; they might have more appeal to conservatives.
posted by tcobretti at 9:45 AM on February 4, 2002


Maxine Waters? Good God Fes, put down the bong.

I wish it were that easy :) No troll. It's true that Waters is a bit of a troublemaker, but she has some clout on the hill and would certainly perk up a lackluster Daschle ticket. And, agree with her views or not, she's comfortable with wielding power (something I'm not sure Gore ever was), she has a definite and marketable agenda, and she's a savvy politician. The Democrats could do a lot worse, practically speaking, imo.

Edwards strikes me as one of the "what if" candidates that everyone talks up mid-term, until they inevitably come back to reality.
posted by UncleFes at 9:45 AM on February 4, 2002


Muddy Waters is *dead*? [long exhale]
posted by UncleFes at 9:47 AM on February 4, 2002


Um, Daschle does not have a snowball's chance in hell, so let's drop this line of discussion, shall we?

If only the Democratic Party had balls... the only way they can win again is to fight dirty like the Republicans.
posted by Ben Grimm at 10:47 AM on February 4, 2002


Al won't be able to make very much political capital on GWs fundbuddies because of the things in Al Gore's Skeleton Closet. Besides, I thought he was too busy running a family restaurant in Tennessee.
posted by Mack Twain at 10:52 AM on February 4, 2002


Jesse Jackson, Jr. in '04. You heard it here.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:02 PM on February 4, 2002


Sadly, the only black man America may be ready to elect president is Colin Powell. I'm a big fan of Harold Ford, Jr. myself.

If only the Democratic Party had balls... the only way they can win again is to fight dirty like the Republicans
Precisely. This is why Tom Daschle would be a problem, and why the campaign needs to be run more like a Carville/Clinton deal.
posted by owillis at 12:07 PM on February 4, 2002


Gore may be able to beat Bush, but he is far from the ideal choice for president. He's got 'kick me' branded all over him.

What combination of Democrats could beat Bush/Cheney? I have a suggestion... How about Andrew Cuomo and Jean Carnahan?

Obviously, Cuomo is a strong choice because... well, he's Cuomo. There's more than a little bit of his father in him, however, and he has serious experience and a solid power base that would lock down both the East and West coast. He'd be a charismatic and dynamic choice.

As for Carnahan, she is easily the best choice I could imagine. She'd be strong in the Midwest and South, and especially amongst women. Best of all, she would be damn hard to brand as a liberal or even attack in any way. Could that be said about Hillary Clinton, Feinstein, Ferraro, or Ann Richards?! She knows how to talk tough, yet her words resonate with a sense of calmness and trust... in fact, she's downright presidential, isn't she?!

She very well might become the Truman of this century...
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:18 PM on February 4, 2002


Jean Carnahan has some flaws. One, she has never run for elected office in her life - she was the governor's wife. He was running for Senator, got killed in a plane crash, he won anyway (the other choice was Ashcroft) and she got named to the seat by the new governor. Now while that in itself is not a bad thing, I don't know if she is up to having her entire life dissected for sport, which is exactly what would happen. For another, she has rarely (if ever) done anything outside of the democratic leadership position, and has little to call her own, legislatively. And she is going to have a good fight on her hands next election with Jim Talent, who's fairly popular and knows his way around an election, as well as around a debate table. Here in/near Missouri, Carnahan is discussed privately with some small measure of derision. Especially near Missouri, since actual Missourians tend to get a little wiggy when you remind them they elected a dead man.
posted by UncleFes at 12:30 PM on February 4, 2002


owillis, I suspect that the GOP is more likely to run with a black VP than the Democrats are in 2004. I don't think Cheney is up for another term and Condi Rice is evidently Bush's closest cabinet member.
posted by Real9 at 1:57 PM on February 4, 2002


Missouri is a screwed up place. I know, I've lived here four whole months now.
posted by annathea at 2:16 PM on February 4, 2002


the only way they can win again is to fight dirty like the Republicans.

Thus, you damn the entire system.
posted by rushmc at 2:27 PM on February 4, 2002


As long as the major media continue to look to jokers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the contemptable Louis Farrakhan for the black perspective...

Alan Keyes?
posted by Danelope at 3:26 PM on February 4, 2002


owillis, I suspect that the GOP is more likely to run with a black VP than the Democrats are in 2004. I don't think Cheney is up for another term and Condi Rice is evidently Bush's closest cabinet member.

Actually, I believe that is completely incorrect. PC aside, there is no way in hell the Republicans would put a black woman in the seat of VP. Sorry, I wish it would happen, and I'm sure that the Democrats will eventually win with a minority, a woman, or both, but the Republicans would lose their shirts in an election with Rice.

Back on topic, the most likely VP candidate for Bush is Tom Ridge. Ridge was supposed to be VP this term, but the election was too close and Bush couldn't risk Ridge's pro-choice stance. Now Ridge is getting publicity as "Homeland Security guy", which allows the people to perceive Ridge as a "defender" of our country and security.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:37 PM on February 4, 2002


Tom Ridge seems like a powerless loon. So far "Director Of Homeland Security" seems to entail "going on Meet the Press to discuss Homeland Secuirty". Washington's so old-school, it has to be a pretty big shift to give a new cabinet position some sort of real power.

I think Powell is the most likely minority candidate of either party, VP after "Big Time". No matter how much they like her, no way the Republicans pick a black woman to be their VP candidate - it would be odd enough for the Democrats, even.

Most likely is both parties go to the tried and true "Old White Guy" well.
posted by owillis at 7:44 PM on February 4, 2002


a powerless loon with a $37.7 billion budget :) that's the ticket!
posted by kliuless at 7:52 PM on February 4, 2002


Tom Ridge seems like a powerless loon.

*sigh* He was a great governor, a strong leader, and well spoken. He was the posterboy Republican, except for the pesky pro-choice situation. Chris Rock said it best about Powell in DC back in 1995. "He's so well-spoken. He speaks so well. He's so well-spoken." (referring to Americans when speaking of Powell and his potential race for the Presidency in 1996)

As much as we'd love to dream of minorities in power, as a sign of equality, the fact that Lieberman was a Jew was a big step. How sad is that, really? It's simply a sign of modern politics in the US. I'm not quite sure if Americans care about power, per se, I'm more inclined to believe that Americans don't want to see a minority in power.

Technically, Powell and Rice have a significant amount of power, but they are rarely read about or heard in the media. In another generation, I expect a minority to hold a major public power seat. This generation, however, will be lucky to see a white woman come into the limelight (i.e. Clinton in 2008 possibly as VP).
posted by BlueTrain at 8:00 PM on February 4, 2002


a powerless loon with a $37.7 billion budget :) that's the ticket!
Candy and mint julep for everyone!!
posted by owillis at 9:24 PM on February 4, 2002


Powell and Rice get a huge amount of press and are two of the three most prominent officials in the Bush administration along with Ashcroft. That seems like an achievement to me, though I wish it was happening under a Democratic president.

If Bush is in trouble coming into the 2004 election, I would not be surprised if he chose Powell to succeed Cheney as vice president. If Powell continues to remain popular without ever being asked to express a contentious political opinion, Bush/Powell would be tough to beat.
posted by rcade at 5:21 AM on February 5, 2002


Alan Keyes?

Cue mosh pit.
posted by y2karl at 6:34 AM on February 5, 2002


Actually, I believe that is completely incorrect. PC aside, there is no way in hell the Republicans would put a black woman in the seat of VP. Sorry, I wish it would happen, and I'm sure that the Democrats will eventually win with a minority, a woman, or both, but the Republicans would lose their shirts in an election with Rice.

I think that's totally wrong. I think there are a lot more left-leaning voters who would vote for Bush because a black woman was on the VP ticket than there are right-leaning voters who would reject Bush because a black woman was on the VP ticket.

The real reason the Republicans might fear such a ticket is that there's gotta be at least a few nutcases who would try to assasinate Bush because they wanted to see the first black and/or female president.
posted by straight at 8:26 AM on February 5, 2002


The real reason the Republicans might fear such a ticket is that there's gotta be at least a few nutcases who would try to assasinate Bush because they wanted to see the first black and/or female president.

I'm assuming you heard the Chris Rock HBO special that I referenced. Later in his show he went on to mention that if we had a black VP, he personally would kill the president just to have a black man as president. He went on to mention how in prison he'd be a hero to all his black cellmates. "I was getting ready to rape you until I found out who you were man. I hope my kids turn out to be just like you man."
posted by BlueTrain at 11:06 AM on February 5, 2002


The 2000 election was Gore's to lose, and surprisingly, that's exactly what he did.
Given the strength of his position going in to that election -- as the incumbent candidate, presiding over a bursting-at-the-seams uberrobust economy -- there's no way he should have lost. But he frittered it all away by being a really, really bad campaigner. Like, classically, stupendously bad. (Yeah, I'm one of the many who feel like they saw three different Al Gores during the three different debates, and ended up not knowing, from the way he comported himself, what he believed in -- which is foundational to one's ability to trust a candidate, which is what I think presidential campaigns are largely about.)

So the question is, given that track record -- and, given how arguably attractive many of the candidates are who will likely be competing for the 2004 nomination (Biden, Daschle, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Condit -- just seeing if you're paying attention ;) -- would the Democrats nominate Gore again? I'd have a hard time believing that they would.

He might make for a good president -- but he's such a miserable campaigner, I just can't see us ever finding out for sure.
posted by verdezza at 12:26 PM on February 5, 2002


« Older Does anybody know these people?...  |  A clearing house for social an... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments