Michael:
This year the issue isn't "bold", but dollars (Ka--chingg!). This is especially true with the political season having been moved up to such an early date this time around. (I think that when Florida moved up their primary, they decided to bite the bullet and say "what the heck, let's hold the 2012, and 2016 primaries on the same day).
Talk about "bold", what about a Latino?
Money and organization are key, but not the ultimate deciders. A great amount of free press coverage can make up for a lack of dollars. That is what has happened to Barak Obama. But money, organization, and a candidate who controls his or her image are key. Kerry lost control of his image last time around. Damned fool had to go windsurfing. Couldn't provide a simple declarative sentence. No, it had to be "I was for it before i was against it." Sheesh!
The DNC doesn't pick the candidates, it just tries to keep the potential for Democratic political suicide down to a reasonable level (you know the old joke: a Democratic firing squad forms up into a circle so they could shoot themselves!)
Hillary supposedly has, or had a lock on the nomination, but yesterday's news of the leaked campaign memo suggesting that she pull out of Iowa to save her money for later campaigns could indicate that the cash register isn't ringing for her like she wants. We will be able to tell during the next round of Federal Election Commission reports.
Barak Obama, I believe, ultimately will be seen as the media creation he is. John Edwards could win Iowa, and ultimately win the nomination.
My personal favorite, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, has just moved up into double digits in Iowa polls. I've heard a lot of talk about slotting Richardson for the VP position, but geez, I think this guy is so superior to the rest of the pack.
By the way, if you read the national polls, the candidates will be Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Besides the fact that I think Giuliani's record can not really endear him to a Republican constituency (especially to that party's right wing), I can't conceive of the possibility that both national tickets will be headed by New Yorkers.
Finally, I would ignore the overall national polls> all they reflect right now are the warm fuzzies. They do not reflect the strength each candidate has to exhibit at each caucus or primary along the way. Candidates can blow up (see: Howard Dean). The best practice is to look at the individual state results, such as those that David Yepsen in Iowa reported on.
As for Al Gore, this is what I wrote on March 3, 2007:
Gore Redux
So some Democrats are unhappy with the possibility of a Hillary candidacy and they are looking for a hero. With upturned eyes and adoring faces, they turn to the failed 2000 candidate, Al Gore. That’s the Democratic party: fail once and then get to fail again.
Gore is Gore. Sure, they said he was groomed for the presidency, but maybe everyone believes it except Al Gore himself. His 2000 campaign was a disaster. He didn’t know what he was , what he stood for or where he wanted to go . He allowed everyone to tell him which clothes to wear, what to say, what to do. Remember the articles which said he wasn’t an “alpha male”? He wasn’t. He was picked apart and hen-pecked like Prometheus on the rock. Only Gore didn’t seem to require chains to bind him. He was a willing victim. Did he ever really want to be president?
On the other hand, Bush wanted the presidency. Oh yes, Bush and his handlers knew what was involved. (I’ll never forgive my leftist friend for saying Bush and Gore were Tweddledee and Tweedledum and since there was no difference between them, he would vote for Nader! NADER! I begged him. I pleaded with him—The Supreme COURT! Bush will pick justices for the Supreme Court! Didn’t work. Hell, if all of the voters in Florida who voted for Nader voted instead for Gore, our history for the last eight years would be markedly different!) Bush et.al. went and got family consigliore Jim Baker and they went to the Republican-picked and packed Supreme Court, which handed the election to GWB.
So when it came time to let it all hang out and challenge the Florida vote count, Gore dithered and diddled away the time and tried to pick and choose which districts required the recount and which didn’t. I want my candidate to know when the time comes to fight for something like a starving junkyard dog. Gore didn’t. He should have demanded a recount for the entire state. Then he played the gentleman, and quietly withdrew “for the good of the country
Gore’s adherents now look to him as the party’s savior; the anti-Hillary, if not the elected one, then the electable one. The guy who was right all along. Gore doesn’t put a stop to the speculation so that the party can move along with it’s quadrennial circular firing squad thing. Nope. Instead he plays the tease with a mock announcement of his candidacy at the Academy awards. When given the chance for a Sherman-esque declaration, he declines to do so.
Maybe Gore feels that he can bide his time and put himself into a winning position. Let’s look at the possibilities: Gore is not a fan of the Clintons because he felt they screwed him out of the possibility of becoming president. Perhaps he thinks that he can wait and pick up an Academy Award here, a Noble Prize nomination, if not a prize itself, there, and then waltz in and save the party from Hillary. For Gore, there would be more and better media coverage then any candidate possibly could garner, and all without the muss and fuss of raising money, putting an organization together, and actually running a campaign.
They used to call him “Prince Albert.” Maybe that’s the secret: Gore doesn’t want to be elected. He wants to be coronated!
I hope I've answered your question.
Yours,
TRM
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment