I have nothing to substantiate this, but Gore's endorsement got me thinking: Is he an option as Dean's VP? Almost certainly not, but it's something to consider, if only academically.
Ralph Nader I like Dean, but his foot is in his mouth half the time (which is better than all of the time with GWB). As I mentioned before, some of Dean's comments will not play well in the South. This is a big problem for him. Of the remaining field, I like Kerry and Edwards. But they both voted for the war which is a problem for me. Edwards has a better chance of beating Dean in the South than Kerry has of beating Dean in New England.
ROXTXIA, Mortality is a key issue... Yes, I know, I know, is moral realtivism...but what I'm talking about is sleeping around with other women (adultery). Dean's has to keep his nose clean on that. Not that the Repubs wont get him for toeing the line on the gay marrage issue. But, no sleeping with interns!! I mean, Kennedy did it. Clinton did it. Dean has to break that mold!
Excellent article in NRO today: Goring Dean Add one more name to the list of those who believe that Howard Dean will prove a cataclysmic disaster for the Democratic party: Al Gore. Why else would Gore have endorsed him? Think about it. Does Gore still wish to be president? Pretty clearly, he does: Otherwise he would have found himself a real job and moved to LA, rather than dabbling in business while maintaining a theoretical domicile in Carthage, Tennessee. But how to gain the presidency? Gore was right to decide against running in 2004. The problem for him was not just that incumbents are hard to beat, but that his party has gone nuts. Had Gore run, much of the rage now directed at George W. Bush for defeating the Dems in 2000 and 2002 would have directed itself instead at Al Gore for losing an eminently winnable race. Gore would have had to reply endlessly to questions about his campaigning in 2000, about his handling of the Florida recount, about his ultimate concession, about his silence on the Bush tax cut, etc. etc. etc. By 2008, those passions will have drained away. Of course, should another Democrat win in 2004, there will be no contest in 2008 for Gore to join. So Gore has to wish for defeat this year. And not for mere defeat, but for catastrophic defeat. A Democratic wipeout in 2004 would make Gore’s performance in 2000 – 51 million votes, 266 electoral votes – look retrospectively much more impressive. That will be especially true when the Democrats wake up to the fact that Dean runs badly with working-class whites and African-Americans. (James Taranto yesterday cited this wonderful line from the Chicago Tribune: “The pre-printed signs ‘African-Americans for Dean’ were held by white supporters.” Meanwhile, Ryan Lizza is astutely observing in this week’s New Republic that Dean and Kerry are campaigning in Iowa’s richest towns, while Gephardt and Edwards seek their votes in the poorest ones. Those who argue that Dean will be a more formidable candidate than expected point to his Vermont record as a fiscal moderate and to the comparative modesty of his health-insurance plan, which is way less generous than that offered by the other major Democratic candidates. But Dean’s combination of weakness in foreign policy, ultra-permissiveness in social policy, and stinginess in fiscal policy isn’t “centrism”: It’s the politics of the dinner parties of Brentwood and East Hampton, of people who read Vanity Fair and don't need an SUV because their grocer delivers. Look at this election from the point of view of a swing voter: say the assistant manager of an Ace hardware in suburban Nashville. He’s patriotic in foreign affairs, moderate to conservative on social issues – but worried about how he’s going to pay his mother’s nursing home bills. What is Dean offering him? Nothing but contempt. I’ll bet a box of Canadian doughnuts that if Dean is the Democratic nominee, Bush will win Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania – all states that Gore carried in 2000. I would not be entirely surprised to see Bush take California too. It’s already easy to predict the Democratic party’s after-action reports on 2004: “We got pushed way too far to the extremes, especially on national security issues, by a candidate who lacked national experience and was foisted on us by a bunch of white college kids who didn’t know anything and didn’t care anything about the economic problems of our voting base.” Sometime after November 2004, a candidate who hails from the border South, served in Vietnam, appeals to black voters, accumulated a long record on national security issues, held the country’s second-highest office, was associated with the longest economic expansion in the country’s history, and proved himself a popular vote-getter in three national elections will begin to look good to his fellow-Democrats, never mind the Florida recount. So Gore needs to speed his party toward the cataclysm – and if he can win new friends on the party’s left and look like a good sport while greasing the skids, all the better. It’s very striking that the party’s two frontrunners for 2008, Gore and Hillary Clinton, are both borrowing pages from the old Richard Nixon playbook. Hillary is reinventing herself just as the “new Nixon” did in 1968; Gore meanwhile is following exactly the same plan for 2004 that Nixon adopted in 1964, when he made sympathetic noises toward Goldwater while complacently watching his successor lead his party to the worst debacle in its post-Depression history. 2004 may not be quite as one-sided an election as 1964 or even 1972, unless of course Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein is captured or shown to have been killed before November. But even without a spectacular further victory in the war on terror, 2004 is shaping up to look a lot like 1988, when another Northeastern near-pacifist won only ten states, all of them except West Virginia in the band of Yankee settlement across the top of the country. So: well played Al. We’ll see you again.
Amazing, considering the above piece and William Safire's lustful ode to Hilary Clinton in yesterday's times (I'm not kidding, that's what it was), very few people seem to express as much interest in the future of the democratic party as fantasist republicans.
TJ, excellent article, and I've seen similar analysis from several other conservative outlets. I don't deny that Hillary's got to be hoping that a democrat loses this year (although i wonder about her and Mr. Bill's purported pushing of Clark into the race, which would've really impacted her chances in '04 were he to win). My problem w/ the "Gore positioning himself for 2008" arguement is that I think much of Gore's recent conversion to populist causes and over-the-top critisism of GWB is heartfelt. He was moving that way during the 2000 election. I think it's just as likely he's positioning himself as a fall-back candidate for this election. Dean wins Iowa and New Hampshire, then bombs in the south, gore can step in and say, "I beat bush in 2000, and dean supporters, i feel your pain." just a thought. I have to say tho' that i am very surprised by how early this endorsement has come.
Its amazing how many knee jerk reactions from republicans each piece of news on Dean brings out. He's obviously not a viable candidate, that must be why they keep telling us that.
So, TJ, Gore endorsed Dean in order to become president himself. Even though he has pretty much resisted all efforts for him to run? The article says it's obvious that Gore wants the White House above all else, because he lives in TN and not CA? That's kind of a stretch IMHO....
Plus, why would Gore want to align himself with a loser? That just doesn't make sense. I think it's much more likely that Hillary has her eyes on the prize than Gore.
What I like about Dean is that he has that quintessential Doctor's attitude, which is the one thing I also don't like about him. He's like the friend who can hit on every girl in the club, get rejected 20 times or more without it embarassing him and through sheer detrmination eventually finds a gal to go home with. OK, that was a bit of a stretch, but the point is Dean doesn't give a damn about a lot of the stuff that politicians are prone to care about. This make him both likely to be able to withstand GOP attacks and put his foot in his mouth. I can live with that because his strength is much greater than his weakness. It's clear he's a strong candidate and he has an incredible organization (the best I've seen at this stage) behind him. I think he can win. Clark's becoming the de facto number 2 choice. It'll be interesting to see if he really attacks Dean or if they have some gentlemen's agreement about future considerations. I think Dean/Clark '04 would be formidable. If it is to happen, it needs to happen fairly quickly while Clark is still riding relatively high in the polls. If he gets squashed by Dean in 20 or so primaries, that's too late in my opinion. The big question is how Dean's organization can assimilate the Clark organization which is top heavy with Clinton and Gore staffers. Dean's people need to stay in the big decision making/strategy poisitons. No way is Graham a VP candidate (no money and no charisma and a bit loony), though I would bet a paycheck that if it's not Clark (who is nominally from Arkansas), it's someone else from the South. I watched a little Brian Williams last night and Russert was on talking about Gore doing this to set himself up for a 2008 challenge against Hillary, which is utter trash. A lot of the press are looking for a self-serving political motive for Gore to do this, but every true Democrat (including the Clintons) knows that the most important thing is to win this election and get Bush out of the WH. I have to believe Gore thinks Dean is the best guy for that and wants to do everything possible to unite the Dems as early as possible. Much has been said about the slight to Joe, Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards but let's face it... they had their chance in Congress and utterly failed to throw even a small wrench into the GOP juggernaut. There's a reason Bush has been able to govern like he won 70% of the vote and that reason is primarily because Congressional Dems rolled over. All of the serious candidates except Dean and Clark are tainted by that and hence, none has a chance for the nomination. So what if their feelings are hurt because Gore didn't tell them. Screw 'em. Either get in line and help beat Bush or go home and cry. If it's the latter it's not that much different from what they've been doing in Congress. (The only one of those guys with potential is Edwards, but he blew it by going all in on the primaries and not fighting to hold his Senate seat a second term. Big mistake for him and it also hurts the Dem party. He's political detritus unless he somehow pulls the VP nod in Clark's stead.) Gore's endorsement makes Dean the nominee, or more accurately, it is probably an acknowledgement by Gore that Dean will win. It's only a matter of time. For those of you on the Dem/Green side of things who didn't support him, now is the time to do so. He may not be perfect and he may have a ridiculous grin, but he's electable, he's capable, and he's a hell of a lot better than what we have now. Give money, give time, and make it so.
i wonder if Clark would make a good VP. the primary qualification for the Job is to be able to support the top of the ticket. We know from his army days that clark has a tendency to think he's better/smarter than anyone else. I wonder if he could subjugate his own formidable ego enough to be a VP.
We also know he can take orders and subjugate his ambition for the greater good. I don't think it's a problem.
By the way, Republicans are already testing national election theme attacks on Dean... There's abortion... http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/archive/200312/POL20031208a.html Look for this to become a "whisper type" of underground push polling questions that assign all kinds of horrible medical practices to Dean. I'll call this the Mengele gambit. Then there's the elitist snob gambit... http://www.americandaily.com/item/3819 Another thing I'm seeing is the phrase "bantam rooster." Look for this more and more over the next few months.
Rimrocker, I agree with totally with your above posts. Dean is the guy. The Repubs fear him a lot. Clark is the front runner for VP, assuming he doesn't make a gaff. He also scares the Repubs. It is best to have a ticket not tainted by voting for the war which eliminates virtually all the other usual suspects except for Clark and Graham who is a loser. Otherwise the Repubs can rightfully say: "well your VP voted to give Dubya the authority." Despite being AWOL we have seen that Dubya is not ashamed to dress up and play Veteran-Hero ,so Clark as a southerner and military guy is the ideal VP. I love all their psychoanlayzing of Dean and Clark. Just think of Dubya's numerous character flaws in comparison. Hopefully the media, other than Fox which is extraordinarily biased, plays it straight by reporting on Dubya's lies and character flaws.
CC's story on the endorsement. Should put an end to the NRO and Jorge's fantasies. ******** "I'm very proud and honored to endorse Howard Dean to be the next president of the United States of America," Gore said. The announcement in Manhattan's Harlem, coming on the morning of another debate between the "'04 Dems," as they're called, could cement Dean's status as the leading Democratic candidate heading into the kickoff contests now just weeks away in Iowa and New Hampshire. "We need to remake the Democratic Party, we need to remake America," Gore said. "This nation cannot afford to have four more years of a Bush-Cheney administration," he said. Prior to Tuesday's endorsement, a source told CNN that Gore -- the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in 2000 -- thinks a protracted primary campaign would serve only to help President Bush. "In a field of great candidates, one candidate clearly now stands out and so I'm asking all of you to join in this grassroots movement to elect Howard Dean president of the United States," Gore said. Dean thanked Gore for his leadership: "We have needed a strong, steady hand in this party and I appreciate Al's willing(ness) to stand up and be one," Dean said. Gore said part of the reason he chose to endorse Dean was his ability to appeal to the nation's "grassroots" elements, a reference to Dean's success in organizing and raising funds on the Internet and in small voter gatherings. Gore also praised Dean's opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The former vice president called the Iraq war a "catastrophic mistake" by the Bush administration, a move that leaves the United States less effective in the nation's battle against terrorism. He said the United States is now in a "quagmire" in Iraq. "He was the only major candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war," Gore said. "And he had the insight and the courage to say and do the right thing. And that's important because those judgments -- that basic common sense -- is what you want in a president." "Whether it is inspiring enthusiasm at the grassroots, and promising to remake the Democratic Party as a force for justice and progress and good in America, whether it is a domestic agenda that gets our nation back on track, or whether it is protecting us against terrorists and strengthening our nation in the world, I have come to the conclusion that one candidate clearly now stands out," Gore said. He added that he and Dean would travel together to Iowa following the announcement. Gore was to give a speech later in the day in Cedar Rapids. The Iowa Caucus is set for January 19. Dean was expected to travel on to New Hampshire for Tuesday evening's Democratic debate sponsored by ABC News and WMUR-TV. The New Hampshire primary is scheduled for January 27. The announcement came nearly three years to the date from Gore's concession in the 2000 election, when he won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. "When we set this event up," Dean said to loud laughter at the rally's start, "I had absolutely no idea that we were going to have the elected president of the United States here with us today." Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gore's vice-presidential running mate in 2000 and a current presidential hopeful, said he would continue "to fight for what's right, win this nomination, and defeat George W. Bush next year." "I have a lot of respect for Al Gore -- that is why I kept my promise not to run if he did," Lieberman said. "Ultimately, the voters will make the determination and I will continue to make my case about taking our party and nation forward," Lieberman said in a written statement. A source close to Lieberman said Gore, who was Clinton's vice president, did not call Lieberman to inform him of the decision. Dean pulling ahead Howard Dean, in thanking Al Gore for his support: "We have needed a strong, steady hand in this party." With the Dean campaign gaining momentum, a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows Dean widening his front-runner status among the eight other Democratic candidates. The poll showed that 25 percent of registered Democrats surveyed support Dean as their nominee, with retired Gen. Wesley Clark coming in second with 17 percent. (Poll: Dean's New Hampshire lead increases) In an interview before the news broke on CNN's "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics," Dean played down his front-runner status. "The pundits in Washington have been talking about me as the front-runner for a long time," Dean said. "Well, guess what, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Arizona and so forth get to decide who the front-runner is. So, it's nice talk, but I'm not buying it." Caught off-guard Erik Smith, a campaign press secretary for Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, sounded as if the Gephardt team was caught off-guard by the news, as were Dean's other rivals. Dean and Gephardt are the top two candidates in Iowa. (Gephardt calls for increased homeland security funding) "Dick Gephardt fought side-by-side with Al Gore to pass the Clinton economic plan, pass the assault weapons ban and defend against Republican attacks on Medicare and affirmative action. On each of these issues, Howard Dean was on the wrong side," Smith said. Saying he respected Gore and fought for his campaign four years ago, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said, "This election is about the future, not about the past." (Kerry: Bush administration arrogant, reckless) "This election will be decided by voters, across the country, beginning with voters in Iowa," he said. Paul Begala, a political adviser to President Clinton and now a host of CNN's "Crossfire," called the endorsement an "enormous boost" that would clearly give Dean momentum going into Iowa and New Hampshire. "It's very good for him," Begala said. "I wouldn't go so far as to say it locks anything up, though, because people want to make up their own minds link
not sure Clark gets off so easy on the war support issue. He was on-board and then changed his mind when he decided it was polically expedient. also, he's on tape praising the present national security team. That'll be hard to live down.
