Who SHOULD Gore have picked from his "short list"?

With seven years of "experience" since the fateful election of 2000, it is informative to see how the main players have shaken out. Gore is winning Emmys and being nominated for the Nobel Prize, Joe Lieberman has, in my opinion, left the proverbial building, and is drooling over the possibility of a war with Iran. John Kerry seems to be in his best place, in the Senate, and John Edwards is the beneficiary of seven years of marinating his mind on what he would do, and not do, as president. And he seems to be at the top of his game.

I wonder if John Edwards is considering returning the favor to Mister Gore...
I suspect he is...since he said Gore was a hero. Obama would also be a good choice...but that sounds presumptuous.

I also wonder if Gore is thinking about endorsing John...now that he is even better than he was BACK THEN!

[MORE BELOW]

My feeling about Obama is that he is now where John Edwards was back then...an exciting new face and voice. Perhaps he would do well to marinate a little more.

With Edwards, the excitement is still there...nay it is building. He brings the house down. I predict he will create a tidal wave of exuberant support.

But that's just me. What do YOU think?

•  Evan Bayh

  was also on the short list too.

  by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:29:40 AM PDT

  •  That would have also...

    ....been a lousy choice, though better than Lieberman. Bayh's conservatism would have given Nader's argument more fuel, just as Lieberman did.

    by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:38:09 AM PDT

    •  One difference

      Bayh would have actually worked his rear off and voted for the ticket. Lieberbush likely voted for W.  That's why he refused to leave his Senate seat.

      by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:53:13 AM PDT

      •  I hate Lieberman plenty

        but let's not get carried away here.

        by brownsox on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:11:24 AM PDT

        •  Bill Bradley

          Hello?  Planet Earth?

          Bill Bradley was the #2 Dem at the time.  He was the only actual Progressive in the race.  (No, Gore was not a Progressive yet.)  Rhodes scholar.  Hall of Fame hoops player.  Highly esteemed in the Senate on both sides of the aisle.  More red state crossover than the three listed choices combined.

          The guy should still be on short lists today.  Or should we limit ourselves to choosing from among the perpetual campaigners?

          by nocore on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:21:18 AM PDT

          •  1) Bill Bradley had just spent months attacking

            the hell out of Gore. He threw some pretty nasty stuff, the basis of Nader's campaign, at him. He also wasn't as progressive as some seem to think.

            by tigercourse on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:27:26 AM PDT

            •  No and No

              Actually, Al and Bill remain friends to this day.  

              So, you're wrong on point 1.

              Point 2, you think Hillary's Progressive, so I'm not sure you're a reliable judge of one's Progressiveness.  

              by nocore on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:48:26 AM PDT

      •  Bayh is Edwards without that third ball

        Bayh just doesn't have the fire.

        by anonyMoses on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:51:33 AM PDT

        •  No he isn't

          Edwards stands up for real people, Bayh for corporations.

          by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:21:02 AM PDT

          •  I agree...n/m

            by anonyMoses on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:39:46 AM PDT

  •  but not the very short list n/m

    by anonyMoses on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:47:37 AM PDT

•  1) Bob Graham. If he couldn't get him,

  he should have gone with Kerry.

  by tigercourse on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:31:14 AM PDT

  •  Both solid choices

    I think Graham could have delivered Florida, Ralph Nader or not. And Kerry would have been a better VP candidate than the guy at the top. He's a pretty tough debater and I think he'd make a solid attack dog, which is exactly what you want as a VP candidate. You don't want a wimp (who won't stand up for the ticket, a la Lieberman) and you don't want a rock star (who will detract from the person at the top).

    by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:40:20 AM PDT

  •  I doubt Graham would have delivered Florida

    Lieberbush was enough to win Florida, if the election was fair.  

    If Graham had been the nominee, Jebby Bush would have ratched up the fraud to a higher level.

    by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:51:55 AM PDT

  •  Precisely.

    by brownsox on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:09:47 AM PDT

  •  Graham was. Edwards is...and will be.

    Besides, Graham was weird looking and slow-headed.

    by anonyMoses on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:53:50 AM PDT

•  Tags

  I put the full names on your tags, AnonyMoses.  Although I don't know if Lieberman should be Joe or Joseph.

  by donnamarie on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:39:46 AM PDT

  •  I think you are wrong about Edwards.

    I predict that Edwards will not be the nominee.

    And your poll is pretty bad too. There is no way that Gore would have chosen Edwards in 2000.

    by Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:17:03 AM PDT

    •  I don't know how this comment ended up attached

      here. It was meant for elsewhere.

      by Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:18:06 AM PDT

  •  I wouldn't worry so much about the first name.

    But I think we are going to have to start putting the D after his name again:

    Lieberman a Democrat again?

    by Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:19:21 AM PDT

    •  Yay.

      

      by Gooserock on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:38:49 AM PDT

  •  thanks!

    I always forget...

    by anonyMoses on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:54:39 AM PDT

•  I think Gore should have made...

  ....a bolder choice than Lieberman. His angle with that was that Lieberman is Jewish, but he had too many other liabilities. I think he'd have been better off if he'd chosen someone more solidly liberal, like, say Barbara Boxer.

  by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:41:38 AM PDT

  •  If not for Monicagate

    I doubt Joe would have even been considered.  I know the Lieberman choice looks bad in hindsight, but at the time, it was generally regarded as inspired ... Gore broke a glass ceiling when he named the first Jewish running mate, Lieberman made FL (which had been solidly Bush before the choice) competitive by 1)energizing Jewish retiree voters there and 2)drawing some Cuban-Americans who would have otherwise voted for Bush.  Remember, at the time Joe was regarded merely as a moderate-to-conservative D.

    by TLS66 on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:51:42 AM PDT

    •  We did much better in FL in 2000 than 2004

      But Gore's entire failing was his inability to decide whether to embrace or set himself apart from the Clinton legacy, and the Lieberman selection was an attempt to split the difference.

      Gore should've more forcefully denounced Clinton while VP, and probably should have pressured him to resign, but I know I'm an outlier on that one.

      by Adam B on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:53:19 AM PDT

      •  Either that

        or stood by him and called the right wing out on their bullshit.

        One or the other, but not neither, or both at the same time.

        I personally think it would have been a mistake to run away from Clinton, but he should have REALLY done so, if that was his intent.

        by brownsox on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:13:09 AM PDT

        •  Clinton's personal failings ...

          ... made governance impossible.  It killed off the second term, and hurt Gore's electoral chance in 2000.  Had Gore said, "Either you resign, or I do," imagine how it plays out.

          by Adam B on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:21:24 AM PDT

          •  Clinton refuses to resign

            Gore does, democrats, pissed that Gore left over such a ridiculous issue, don't nominate Gore in 2000?

            by Sinister Rae on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:35:34 AM PDT

            •  Alternatively

              People see Gore as "his own man," advocates independently for a continuation of the good parts of the Clinton legacy without being tied to all the crap.

              And I maintain that it's a serious issue whenever the head of a large and powerful organization starts having affairs with interns.

              by Adam B on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:37:59 AM PDT

              •  The Clinton crowd would have

                destroyed Gore over it, even if it meant electing a Rethug.

                That is the only way I would have voted for Nader in 2000.  If the Dems kowtow to the theocratic religious right, I think it's time to bolt.

                by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:41:08 AM PDT

              •  The problem w/these kinds of

                hypotheticals is that there are so many variables, making it hard to come up w/ good models.  I think both of our comments have some level of truth in them, but it's impossible to say how much or how it would've played out.

                And I maintain that it's a serious issue whenever the head of a large and powerful organization starts having affairs with interns.

                I don't necessarily disagree, but it was a consensual affair, so my outrage in that regard is rather limited.

                by Sinister Rae on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:43:25 AM PDT

              •  You are amazingly naive. His own man?

                Get real. How many voters would have reacted that way?
                1 million? 2?
                It would have finished Gore right there. Most Dems would have kicked him to the curb  immidiately. Especially the Clinton fanatics.

                by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:18:16 PM PDT

            •  OK So w Gore Out Who'd Likely Been Nominee? nt

              by Gooserock on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:40:22 AM PDT

              •  Assuming only Gore and

                Bradley ran, Bradley of course.  Who knows?  If Gore resigned maybe he would be so politically damaged he wouldn't have even run in 2000.  Or maybe, as Adam suggests up thread, it would've worked out great.  

                These kind of "what ifs" can very quickly spin off into something that has little grounding in reality.

                by Sinister Rae on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:46:51 AM PDT

                •  But did you notice the common element

                  in these theories is blaming Gore for mishandling the issue?

                  He screwed it because he "ran away" from Clinton
                  and
                  he screwed it because he didn't really ran away from Clinton
                  and
                  he screwed it because he both ran away from Clinton and he didn't really ran away from Clinton.

                  Obvious, isn't it?

                  by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:23:21 PM PDT

            •  I'll tell you this

              if Gore did that, I would not have voted for Gore under any circumstances.  I would have voted for someone else in the primary, and Nader in the general.

              Party loyalty is a litmus test for me.  It is the primary reason why I have Joe W Lieberbush.

              by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:43:47 AM PDT

              •  I'm loyal to progressive ideals, not the party...

                ... or the Clintons.  And what the President did was borderline sexual harassment (insofar as I don't believe one can ever truly consent to an employer who's got the Secret Service on his side), and wrong, wrong wrong, no matter who his opponents were.

                by Adam B on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:48:18 AM PDT

                •  I see

                  so it would have been sexual harassment against Clinton for any woman who wanted to have relations with Clinton to do so.

                  Sounds like right-wing propaganda to me.

                  by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:02:19 AM PDT

                  •  Well ...

                    ... for a 21-year-old working in the White House, yes.

                    For a woman of more appropriate age, however...

                    by Adam B on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:06:32 AM PDT

                •  Inexusable, as Gore put it. Then he ran his own

                  campaign. As far as I remember Clinton was a non-factor in Gore's operations. So what else should he have done to appease you?

                  by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:24:59 PM PDT

                  •  and Clinton being the non-factor

                    allowed Jebby to steal Florida.  Clinton would have brought Arkansas at the least.

                    by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:42:02 PM PDT

                    •  No way. Clinton was very unpopular in

                      Arkansas in 2000. Just like in every other swing state. Most people liked the policies but they didn't like Clinton himself. He had above 60% unfavorable rating in Arkansas.
                      He was a disaster for Gore in 2000 and without his scandals he would have won easily. A lot of voters who liked the policies but disliked Clinton voted for Bush. Now guess why they did that.

                      Why don't you actually check the exit polls instead of just blindly trusting your instincts? Facts are more reliable than emotions, you know.

                      by elender on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:17:02 PM PDT

          •  Gore would have looked

            like an overambitious used car salesman, someone who appears to be selling Clinton down the river to advance his own political career.

            The result is that W wins a landslide in 2000.

            If Gore had stood by Clinton the whole way, not by defending him, but simply attacking the wingnuts, I think he would have won.

            by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:39:08 AM PDT

            •  Gore did stand by Clinton and he did

              attack the wingnuts. So much that the press didn't waste a minute to call him the attack dog and overly negative and mean and even a vampire.

              What else should he have done to appease you?

              And what the hell makes you think your tactics - whatever they would have been - would have made more people vote for Gore? Enough to make the butterfly ballot and the other "irreguralities" in Florida irrelevant?

              by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:27:34 PM PDT

              •  Gore did for the most part

                but he tried to distance himself from Clinton, and didn't let Clinton campaign for Gore, which likely cost him Arkansas at the least.

                by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:37:40 PM PDT

                •  Of course he didn't let Clinton campaign for him

                  He would have been an idiot if he had done the opposite. Clinton had 60%+ unfavorable ratings in swing states. End of story. Gore had his own polling and there were plenty of independent scientific polls which told the same story: most swing voters didn't want to do anything with Clinton anymore. They were sick and tired of his scandals and they wanted change.

                  Also, Clinton wouldn't have been a member of a Gore administration and I am not insterested in people who are irrelevant in terms of what kind of presidency we will have in the next four years.
                  I didn't vote for Gore just because Clinton or someone else todl me to vote for him. Why do you think most voters think differently?
                  It's just not he way it works.
                  And Gore had every right to run as his own man just like Clinton had it in 1992 or Bush had it in 2000.

                  Clinton was a loser in Arkansas in 2000. Sorry.

                  Is your opinion of Bill Clinton as a person:

                  36% Favorable
                  61% Unfavorable

                  Would you vote for Bill Clinton if he ran for U.S. Senate in Arkansas?

                  39% Yes
                  60%  No

                  http://www.msnbc.com/...

                  Anyone who campaigns with a guy who has 61% unfav rating is a nutjob. And Gore is not a nutjob.

                  by elender on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:23:49 PM PDT

                  •  I recall at least two polls

                    showing Clinton defeating W in October 2000 nationally by 5-7% in a hypothetical matchup.  
                    They make sense to me, as Clinton's job approval rating was consistently in the high 50s.  

                    I hold to my belief that Gore would have been best situated by attacking the right-wing on their moralistic bullshit and standing by Clinton.  

                    by IhateBush on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 11:05:12 PM PDT

              •  Florida was a goner

                unless Gore was winning handily in other states.

                Jebby Bush would have found a way to steal Florida, if the state was relevant.  (Of course if Gore was winning handily, he probably would have called it off).

                by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:39:21 PM PDT

                •  Florida was not a goner and Gore won it

                  Jebby didn't have anything to do with Jews voting for Buchanan or blacks overvoting in Duval.

                  Those two factors hurt Gore the most.
                  The overvotes and the Buchanan votes.

                  The state  was relevant and it was one state where Gore actually had a real chance to win -- as opposed to states like Tennessee (home of right wing nuts) or Arkansas where in  2000 Clinton was disliked like never  before.

                  by elender on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:26:32 PM PDT

                  •  Exit polls showed Gore

                    winning by 3-4%, which is by a good 150,000 votes.  I think Jebby did a good deal of cheating to obliterate that many votes, which is much more than the ballot problems.  I do believe that there was outright vote stealing in both 2000 and 2004 in FL.

                    by IhateBush on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 11:00:13 PM PDT

          •  Completely inappropriate

            No VP should ever be conspiring against an elected President to force a resignation and cause the VP to succeed to the higher office. That's real banana republic stuff.

            Such a move would also have been directly in conflict with polling results at the time showing overwhelming opposition to the Repub impeachment effort among Democrats, and fairly strong opposition among the public at large.

            by Woody on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:40:47 AM PDT

            •  Didn't have to wait for impeachment.

              The affair itself was wrong. Period.

              [Okay, let's curtail this here, else it's a threadjack I wasn't intending.]

              by Adam B on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:46:52 AM PDT

              •  Maybe you're in the wrong party

                The affair itself was wrong. Period.

                Sounds like you'd make a good Rethug.

                by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:57:13 AM PDT

                •  Oh for fuck's sake.

                  Adam is more than entitled to have his own opinion on what is a fairly complex situation given the people and power differentials involved.

                  That certainly doesn't make him a fucking Republican.

                  by Sinister Rae on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:02:32 AM PDT

                  •  Seriously

                    I didn't know that to be a Democrat would mean I was somehow pro-adultery, or at least anti-anti-adultery.

                    by Adam B on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:07:20 AM PDT

                    •  Well

                      you know us Democrats.  It's all about the kinky sex and the good governance.  

                      Or something.

                      OT, but did your diary generate some interest in SafeHome?

                      by Sinister Rae on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:12:49 AM PDT

                      •  Some, but not enough

                        Raised about $400.  I need to do it on a day when I can get instant feedback from the PCEH folks on what's raised, and someone capable of doing a "bat"-type graphic.

                        Kinky sex and good governance are not incompatible.

                        by Adam B on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:15:37 AM PDT

        •  Which means exactly what?

          What should he have done abuot which you would say
          "well he really run away from Clinton"?

          by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:16:13 PM PDT

      •  In hindisght

        I do believe Bill should have resigned.  At the time I was like "Clinton resign? Over my dead body!"  But in hindsight, I think we would have been better off.  Not so sure about Gore pressuring him though, it would have made him look like he just wanted power for himself and could well have made governing impossible.

        by TLS66 on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:47:22 AM PDT

      •  Gore pretty much decided what to do with the

        Clinton legacy and he explained it in a reasonably.

        Every campaign is about the future not about the past and Gore was running for president not Clinton anyway.

        He couldn't have pressured him to resign. That idea is utterly ridiculous. The vice president doesn't have that kind of power. Only Clinton could decide whether to resign or not. And if Gore had  said publicly that Clinton should resign he would have alienated 80% of the Dem party and as a result he wouldn't have won the nomination let alone the general election.

        by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:15:19 PM PDT

  •  Feingold would have actually

    been a decent pick in 2000.  His reformist tendencies and rebuke of Clinton (Feingold was the lone Democrat to continue the impeachment investigation).  He is also Jewish.

    Of course, his vote against Clinton and his general lack of partisanship is why I don't like Feingold very much.  I just don't think he understands why the Rethugs are so evil, and that we need to adopt some of their methods (however distasteful they are) to destroy them.

    by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:56:28 AM PDT

    •  Which methods should we use?

      Torture?

      Lying us into war?

      Corruption?

      by Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:21:58 AM PDT

      •  I have no issues with using the Patriot Act

        against the Christofascists for example.  Root out their churches, and use COINTELPRO methods to destroy that movement.  They will probably make it easier in the next few years, because I suspect that many of them will turn to violent terrorism to achieve their goals.

        This is one positive with Hillary Clinton, she will deal with them very harshly.  

        by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:29:14 AM PDT

        •  Ouch!

          i am tempted to take back my initial rec ... but i shant ....

          i can guarantee one way to turn those lunatics that You describe into violent terrorism types -- by doing exactly what You suggest ... and in all honesty, a lot of us that have 'liberal principles' rather than just a liberal facade might well be sympathetic to them

          while i can't stand the freaks involved in Ruby Ridge ... i can't say that i don't understand why they were pissed off

          by josephk on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:34:02 AM PDT

        •  I Suspect You Have No Idea How Big and Pervasive

          they are.

          This is not a movement that can be destroyed by government force, hard or soft, any more than militant Islam can, for exactly the same reasons, plus the fact that they are enormously powerful in 1st world assets and connections.

          They have to be purged from illegitimate government power and position, yes, which will require ordinary law enforcement and intelligence work.

          I just visited a yachting marina vacation community in the irreligious Pac Northwest and there were clearly numbers of them there.

          This movement is everywhere because it is very useful and helpful to its people in their daily lives in ways rationalism is not able to deliver.

          Darwin's a bitch, numbers and growth are what define success not logic.

          If we can't find something to offer these people that works better for them in their lives when they apply it than what Christianism does for them, they're going to take over in a straight Darwinian process.

          by Gooserock on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:45:54 AM PDT

          •  Doesn't matter

            it can be substantially curtailed by using things like the Patriot Act and infiltrating their churches and destroying them from within.

            I know how dangerous they are, which is why I support using these types of methods.

            by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:00:22 AM PDT

    •  Feingold from the other hand

      his vote against Clinton and his general lack of partisanship is why I don't like Feingold very much

      hmmmm ... i have no real stong stance on his vote 'against Clinton' ... but i totally agree -- on his 'lack of partisanship' -- only for me, that is a very attractive feature

      Feingold is often painted as some wild eyed liberal ... the simple fact is that he is an extremely principled and thoughtful individual ... he consistently focuses on substance and policy over style and politics ... he has demonstrated a profound respect for the US Constitution

      For me, Feingold is by far one of the most decent politicians in the US ... i may not always agree with his positions and votes -- but i can pretty much say that i can not think of a time where i did not respect where he was coming from and the process he took of getting there ... a truly principled politician that i would be so proud to call "my President"

      by josephk on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:24:05 AM PDT

      •  Feingold is a wild eyed liberal

        which is exactly why he is so principled and pretty non-partisan.  He makes a good senator, with his conscience, but would make a bad President for the same reason.    

        I'm not, I have no problem in punching below the belt to achieve our goals.  

        by IhateBush on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:32:53 AM PDT

    •  Adopting GOP tactics?

      
           Some tactics (e.g.  unity and focus of message) may be worthwhile.

           But, when it comes to the sort of tactics we (rightfully) condemn, I prefer not to imitate that which we loathe.

           Why fight fire with fire when we can fight it with water?

      by garscosi on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:24:33 AM PDT

      •  We Wrongly Condemn Their Best Tactic

        Emotion.

        Ignoring the entire history of civilization and our own party history from our zenith 20th century era, a lot of us insist that we must motivate purely with policy and arguments.

        Talk about a fundamentalist belief!

        You win in politics with about 3-5 parts emotion to 1 part reason.

        I don't know why some of the left are so apalled by this reality. After all, that 1 part reason of ours is both successful and true.

        The history of our ethnic movements, labor, women's suffrage, FDR, MLK -- 90% emotion. Those weren't chess clubs.

        by Gooserock on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:50:46 AM PDT

•  Kerry

  Of the three, I would pick Kerry, since he wouldn't of lost the VP debate to Cheney the way Lieberman did.  Also, he may have helped win neighboring NH, which was very close and would have tipped the scale to Gore, Florida or no Florida.

  Lieberman has turned out to be a disaster on so many levels.  He got such a big head out of the nomination that he turned from a holier-than-thou moderate to an insufferable egotist with a national Q rating.

  by Truth Hurts on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:55:44 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    Kerry is a tough debater, and that's precisely what you want in a VP candidate. You don't want someone who will outshine the guy (or gal) at the top of the ticket. And you don't want someone who won't be a tough and tireless advocate for the ticket. Kerry isn't too flashy, so he wouldn't have detracted from Gore. Likewise, I think Kerry is also aggressive enough to have whipped Cheney's arrogant ass in a debate.

    by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:18:39 AM PDT

•  John Edwards...

  ...would have been a terrible choice in 2000.  A brand-spanky new senator with no other experience in elective office?  That doesn't seem wise to me.

  But more to the point, why are we re-examining a decision made over seven years ago?  I guess it's interesting from an academic point of view (and God knows I'm rarely opposed to talking for talking's own sake!), but what difference does it make today?

  by Jon Stafford on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:57:12 AM PDT

  •  Sort of agree...

    although I think all of the stuff that happened in 2000 made a great deal of difference.  Yes, the country as a whole would have been much better off over the past several years had Gore not been cheated, but I think he would have suffered as much (if more slowly) in office given the economic & media constraints he'd have faced, quite possibly have lost in 2004, and the right wouldn't be as weakened as they are now thanks to Bush*.  The Gore we love today wouldn't exist-- his judgment and essential decency still would, of course, but I'm talking about his public prestige-- had he not crossed the wilderness post-2000.  He's changed, we've changed... most of us wouldn't choose the things that make us suffer, but in retrospect that's usually where we find our strengths.  Life's funny that way.

    *whether Dems will make any use of that weakness, instead of just allowing the GOP plenty of healing/regrouping time, seems questionable at best.  Sigh.

    by latts on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:18:19 AM PDT

  •  I agree with this

    Edwards, also, would have outshined Gore in terms of personality. You do not want to have a VP nominee who detracts from the person on the top of the ticket.

    by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:19:30 AM PDT

•  Kerry or Graham.

  In retrospect, picking Graham would probably have been a good idea.

  by brownsox on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:09:26 AM PDT

•  Boy! Three Whole Choices?

  What about someone like Bill Bradley?  He was the Dems' #2 choice at the time.  He was to the left of any viable candidate in 2000 (and still would be today).  The guy is a brilliant academic (see: Rhodes Scholar).  He is highly esteemed in Democratic circles. And he had great red state crossover given his Hall of Fame basketball career and general social ease. He not only should have been chosen in 2000, he should still be on short lists today.

  As far as Edwards in 2000... wasn't he like 14 then?  come on.  Experience isn't everything, but it has to matter some.  The guy wasn't even vaguely, remotely prepared to be VP in 2000.  I mean, not even close.  He's only now reaching some kind of maturation.

  Onto the next bit of the diary.  I don't see how there is even an inkling of a tidbit of a shred of evidence that the Edwards excitement is "building".  He is in a distant fourth place.  He trails a guy- Gore- who isn't even in the race.  And the latest Gallup poll has Edwards plummeting to 10% (from highs in the 20's) while Zogby has him at 11%. Exactly what house is it that he's bringing down?  He's one poll away from single digits.

  The fact of the matter is this:  the race among the current field is over.  Hillary (I cringe) beat the pants off of Obama and Edwards.  It's over.  She leads Obama 2 to 1 and she leads Edwards 4 to 1. And anyone who is still clinging denialistically to their Edwards or Obama hopes is just playing right into Hillary's hands.  And every day people cling to the hopes of one of those little candidates is a day wasted in defeating Hillary.  Her political machine is just gigantic.

  And there is only one American the political machine to defeat it- Al Gore.  At this point there are only two possible Dem nominees- Hillary (absolutely dominating the field to the point of making the rest look silly) or Gore (the most popular electable Democrat in America). To cling to any other opinion is to be in denial.  If you don't want Hillary to be your president, then you damn well better get to getting Gore to run. (Interestingly, Gore has cleared his calender after October 17th. Hmmmmm. Odd. Why would he do that?)

  Oh, and as far as VP's in 2008 go, that's already decided.  It's Wes Clark.  

  by nocore on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:11:30 AM PDT

  •  If I recall correctly...

    ....Howard Dean was pulling way ahead at this point in 2004, so let's not jump to any conclusions here. Plus, if the Edwards and Obama camps united behind one of those candidates, HRC's lead gets awfully slim.

    by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:21:18 AM PDT

    •  It Ain't Just a River in Egypt

      At no point was Howard Dean "way ahead."  It's bad enough to cling to denial; but clinging to fiction is even worse.  For one stretch, he held a modest lead, and it quickly dissipated.  And Howard Dean's political machine was quite literally a microfraction of the size of Hillary's. Hillary's is the largest non-incumbent political machine created to run a presidential race in all of American history.  It is mammoth.

      Stop being in denial.  

      We all wish it worked differently.  But it isn't working out differently this time around. Hillary leads the current field by margins larger than any non-incumbent in the last century.  Her lead is enormous.  You can't cite historical preedent for it.  There isn't one.  She is dominating by margins for which there isn't a comparison.  

      I wanted to see Obama or Edwards defeat her.  With all of my heart and soul.  But she beat them.  She leads by bigger margins- at this point in the race- than any non-incumbent in any of our lifetimes.  It's a blowout.  A landslide.  A shellacking.  A total, complete, whole domination.

      And there is only one electable American with the political machine to defeat it- Al Gore.  If he doesn't enter the race by October 23 (the first ballot cut-off), then the race is over and Hillary has won.  

      And if people exerting energies elsewhere would get over the denial of this and join a draft Gore movement, we might be able to have a Progressive president.

       

      by nocore on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:37:20 AM PDT

      •  No one has cast a single vote yet

        Remember, Kerry was polling in the single digits at one point. Nothing is inevitable. I'm not saying HRC doesn't have the advantage- she does- but it's far from insurmountable.

        by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:46:32 AM PDT

        •  -- Against a Frontrunner With No Machine

          just a lot of unconnected activists.

          I was a Dean man and a delegate for him locally but it was obvious 9 months before Iowa that he wasn't building conventional machine anywhere near the way he had to.

          The blogosphere launch was terrific but it needed to adopt and actually be absorbed to a great degree by some kind of party or party-grounded infrastructure during the initial splash.

          Dean only remained visible because party machinery and candidates were not competing seriously that year. Yes Kerry, but he went through several acts before he was viable.

          by Gooserock on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:55:59 AM PDT

        •  Platitudes Aren't Working

          There isn't historical precedent for this.

          Stop trying to fall back on one.

          No non-incumbent Democrat has been this dominant in any of our lifetimes.  And no Democrat in American history has had a larger campaign political machine.  Stop trying to craft comparisons.  There isn't one.  We've not seen one like this before.  This is dominance without precedent.  

          We either get Gore to run, or Hillary wins.

          I know it's hard to swallow.  So, get some water.  I hate it as much as you.

          by nocore on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:56:01 AM PDT

          •  You're sort of intense

            Perhaps you should have some water.

            by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:33:44 AM PDT

            •  You Bet I Am

              If only more Americans were intense, then maybe we might have more choices than the Democrats (a party that would be center-right in any Western European nation) and the Republicans.  Every Western European nation has a major party that is to the left of the American Democratic Party.  Every one.

              But we sit around and quibble over unelectable centrists.

              We can have a Progressive- Gore.  Or we can have Hillary- a centrist who is fiscally and militarily conservative and socially quasi-moderate.

              There are two choices.

              by nocore on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 09:32:28 AM PDT

              •  Gore is fine with me

                Though, interestingly enough, I found him insufficently progressive in 2000, which is why I voted for Nader (in a heavily pro-Bush state, so no spoiler effect). But since 2002, Gore has done much to impress me.

                I still maintain that either Edwards or Obama can beat HRC, though it will not be easy, as you point out. And either of those candidates would make a fine, progressive President.

                I disagree that HRC is unelectable, though I do agree that she's a centrist and that her centrism actually cuts into her ability to win big. And win big is something that we need to do. A landslide will give progressives the kind of momentum we need to bring about real, and not just cosmetic changes. We can't afford the Bush Doctrine in foreign policy, even if we put a smiley face on it. And let's hope we can make the GOP an irrelevant factor in the future so that we can actually vote for someone to the left of the Democrats in good conscience.

                by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:39:10 AM PDT

                •  ...

                  I never said Hillary is unelectable.  I said she is unbeatable.  Except by Gore.

                  We are four months away.  She leads Obama by 20 points.  She leads Edwards by 30 points.  We have no precedent in our lifetimes for this sort of electoral dominance from a non-incumbent Democrat.  It is absolute domination.  There is no precedent for a comeback from a lead like this.  She has defeated the existing field.  It is over.  It's over.

                  Only Gore's entry can alter this.  And if we want a Progressive president, we better start mobilizing around this reality.  We don't have time for denial at this point.  There are only 32 days left for him to enter and be on all states' ballots.

                  by nocore on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:49:04 PM PDT

  •  I recommend your comment

    even as I disagree with parts of it.

    I think that Obama still has a chance. Lots can happen in the next few months.

    But, I agree that Gore is our last hope to defeat Hillary if Obama can't. If Gore does run I hope that he picks Obama as his VP.

    by Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:27:07 AM PDT

    •  It's the Machine

      I know.  I know.  It's hard.  I've loved Obama ever since I met him at a house party in Los Angeles in 2003.  And I do believe that he will one day be the President.

      But I want a Progressive president in 2008.  And, in purely pragmatic terms, Gore is our best hope by wide margins.

      by nocore on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:42:30 AM PDT

      •  Except That He's Running Away From It

        as hard as he can gallop.

        Gingrich by contrast is running a meaningful dark horse candidacy.

        He's popping up in media regularly and he's speaking on the variety of topics appropriate for a potential head of state to be heard on.

        Gore is crusading on climate change.

        That's one of the least politically urgent topics there is right now; nothing important is going to improve for any voters in the next 4 years if we were to swing, say, the entire MIC and NASA and NSF etc. focus over to climate change solution.

        Whereas finance, diplomacy, health care, militarism --any one of those could dramatically change millions' lives within months, and so politically are vastly more urgent in the minds of masses of voters.

        And there's not enough machine left over from Hillary anyway. If Obama's not competitive having more money, what the H has Gore got to make him viable politically?

        He's not going to do it, he's got no reason to do it and he's burning all the important bridges by pursuing the cause he is.

        by Gooserock on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:03:32 AM PDT

        •  Gore Approval: 85%

          Actually, Gore hasn't taken a week off all year.  He makes anywhere from 1 to 4 public appearances a week.  And he speaks regulary on topics across the politival spectrum.  It simply is untrue to say that he's only addressing climate change.

          And all I'm saying is this.  Gore has cleared his calender of any engagements after October 17th.  Why has he done this?  I don't know.  I only know that it's highly uncharacteristic.

          As far as your cynicism about Gore, he currently has an 85% approval rating among Democrats.  This is by far- BY FAR- the largest of any Democrat alive in America.  Yes, including Bill Clinton.  

          And to doubt his political machine, well, that part's a joke right?  He has an enormous, enormous political machine with access to enormous cash windfalls.

          What's a guy with an 85% pervent approval rating got to do to make himself viable, you ask?  Um, nothing.  Except announce.

          by nocore on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 09:43:43 AM PDT

          •  I agree.

            There are quite a few people that would jump on the Gore bandwagon if he announced.

            If he does announce then I think that will be the end of Edwards campaign. It will come down to Clinton vs. Gore. Obama will stay in because he will go for the VP spot. With any luck we could have a split convention and Obama could end up with the Nomination. That is my ideal scenario with Gore jumping in.

            by Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:27:23 AM PDT

          •  I don't question your claims but

            what't that poll where Gore has 85% positive?
            Source?

            by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:31:26 PM PDT

        •  as far as Gore's situation goes

          a few facts for your delectation:

          1. Gore's best known for the environment, but he has great expertise in technology and foreign policy. He was the first major Democratic leader to speak out against the Iraq invasion before we went in--something only Obama, among the Dem frontrunners, can claim. I also suggest reading The Assault on Reason for Gore's views on why our democracy is so broken. Briefly, he argues that if the political climate is healthy, with all citizens' views being heard and debated in the public forum, then good policy will follow naturally--whether on finance, diplomacy, health care, or militarism.

          2. Gore's net worth is well over $100 million. Money will not be a problem, especially when he announces and the donations pour in.

          3. There are Draft Gore organizations in Michigan, California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey trying to get him on the ballot, plus countless groups in other states--see America for Gore's website. When Gore announces, they will flock to his campaign.

          4. You're wrong about climate change and the environment not being issues of immediate importance. The reason we're in Iraq really boils down to one thing: oil. As long as we depend on oil, we will be fighting wars in the Middle East to get it. The only way out is to develop alternative energy sources. And taking the lead on the development of sustainable technologies will reinvigorate our economy.

          by limpidglass on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 01:50:10 PM PDT

•  (Almost) Won Florida

  
       I'm not sure that would have happened without a Jewish VP candidate.

  by garscosi on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:13:12 AM PDT

  •  It would have with Graham

    and there were other Jewish candidates; Feingold would have been pretty good, so would Feinstein (who could have brought in a few extra women, too).

    by brownsox on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:14:26 AM PDT

    •  Feinstein...

      ....would have been a pretty solid choice, but I think Boxer would have been better. Feinstein would have reinforced Nader's argument that there's no real difference between the two parties. Boxer would have proven Nader wrong and would have been tougher with the Republicans. Certainly nothing as embarassing as Lieberman sitting down and agreeing with 75% of what Cheney had to say.

      by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:22:44 AM PDT

      •  Feinstein???

        i'm sorry ... have we been watching the same California Democratic US Senator?

        i'll give her some moderate kudos for her work on the USA scandal ... but, really ... the distance between Liebermann and Feinstein is, for me, way too narrow for a real level of comfort

        by josephk on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:27:29 AM PDT

        •  She's too centrist for my taste

          But she would have been an OK choice for Gore. Her problem, like I said, would have been the same as with Lieberman- she'd help prove Nader right.

          by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:47:45 AM PDT

          •  Really?

            Nader's argument was this:

            Nader's campaign has for months repeated a mantra that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

            I don't see how a VP pick would have changed his mind if he was deluded enough to believe that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

            by 0wn on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:26:58 AM PDT

            •  Don't you think....

              ....that picking Lieberman, a pretty conservative and corporate Democrat reinforced Nader's argument? Picking a more liberal and anticorporate VP would have taken some of the strength from Nader's argument.

              by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:32:44 AM PDT

              •  No.

                It wasn't about that.  Don't forget that Nader wanted Greens to run against Feingold and Wellstone because he believed that they weren't "liberal" enough and no different from Republicans.  So, no I don't think it would have taken "strength" away from his argument if Gore had chosen someone more liberal.  I don't think Nader had a "strong" argument to begin with.

                by 0wn on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:41:15 AM PDT

                •  I disagree

                  Nader voters weren't automatons. Nader's commentary about Democrats like Feingold and Wellstone had little impact on the races because lefty voters liked and trusted Wellstone and Feingold and Nader wasn't going to change anything about that. Nader's argument against Gore, while not 100% true, was also not 100% false. Certainly, for me, nominating Lieberman did little to improve my opinion of Gore (I've since revised that view starting in 2002). I don't think I was alone, either.

                  by metal prophet on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:33:01 AM PDT

    •  Didn't Graham have

      some other issues though?  Something about keeping detailed diaries of trivial things?

      by Sinister Rae on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:31:04 AM PDT

      •  lol.

        I recall reading about that on his Wiki page, but I assumed it was some kind of joke.

        He has a quirky habit of keeping a detailed log of his daily activities on color-coded notebooks, which some say may have cost him a spot on past vice-presidential tickets. He keeps all of these notes in a file cabinet arranged by month and year.

        I still don't understand why that would cost him a chance to be VP though.

        by 0wn on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:57:10 AM PDT

        •  In general it probably shouldn't

          but in practice, given the fucked up and tivial nature of campaign 2000, I can totally see that being spun horribly for Gore.

          by Sinister Rae on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 09:05:47 AM PDT

  •  again

    that's why I think Bob Graham would have been the best choice.  By far.

    by mcfly on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:14:53 AM PDT

    •  And what if Gore didn't want to work with

      Graham because they didn't like each other or didn't agree on how to manage the executive branch?

      Would you pick a veep who you don't think you can have a good working relationship with?

      Also, if Gore had picked Graham the press would have attacked him for pandering. It was predictable given how much they hated Gore.

      by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:42:44 PM PDT

  •  It wouldn't have.

    But people love to jump on the "bash Lieberman" train instead of actually looking at the numbers.  Lieberman was a good choice in 2000.

    by 0wn on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:28:47 AM PDT

•  sorry this is a no brainer

  it is obvious that Kerry SHOULD have been the choice and WOULD have been the choice had Clinton's monica problem not forced Gore to choose Holy Joe.

  If Gore had picked Kerry and everything had played out exactly the same Gore would have been President for the mere fact that while Joe helped Gore take Florida (only for it to be stolen) but it is absolutely certain that John Kerry would have swung New Hampshire for Gore.

  NH 4 electoral votes would have swung the election to Gore

  by smartone on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:29:04 AM PDT

  •  Kerry would have been a disaster

    He was more liberal than Gore and he had nothing to do with the economic boom (at least Gore worked in the administration) and he was from Mass.
    I.e. he was a non-starter.

    Which red state would have voted for Gore had Kerry been his running mate?

    by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:38:37 PM PDT

  •  Certain? There is zero evidence for it n/t

    by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:44:49 PM PDT

•  A long list of other choices that might have

  even SLIGHTLY fought back against Cheney.

  Gore went after the DLC money umbrella.  (Wasn't Lieberman chair of the DLC?)  Since he was distancing himself from Bill Clinton (the other major source of funding -- Bill could/can attract MASSIVE amounts of money), he was probably pressured into accepting Lieberman.

  At that time we hadn't seen Lieberman's true colors.  (Or at least most of us hadn't.  I sure hadn't -- I figured he'd be another dead-end, one-term VP like Quayle.)

  In hindsight, Lieberman was probably the worst of choices.  The VP candidate is supposed to be an attack dog, moderated by the Presidential candidate, right?  I can't see certain people actually in that role.  (Kerry, for instance.)

  by polecat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:29:20 AM PDT

  •  Do you really think Clinton would have raised

    money for Gore when his wife was running for the Senate?
    Get real.
    The Clintons didn't give a damn about the presidential election in 2000. They didn't want Gore to win. They had their own plan which wouldn't have worked if Gore had become president because if Gore had been re-elected in 2008 that would have been 16 years Dem White House and no way Hillary would have had a chance to win at that point.

    Everybody just says it was Gore who didn't want to use Clinton. What if Clinton himself didn't want to help Gore anyway?

    by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:35:49 PM PDT

    •  Why would Bill do that?

      My recollection of the time was Gore trying to distance himself from Clinton.  It sure didn't seem like Clinton holding Gore off with a 10-foot pole.

      But those who really know aren't telling.

      Can you think of ANOTHER reason for Gore picking Lieberman?  Maybe some biography someday will tell us.

      by polecat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 03:11:02 PM PDT

  •  No, veep candidates are not supposed to be

    attack dogs. Only partisans like that. Swing voters don't.

    by elender on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:39:40 PM PDT

    •  Then why have a VP debate at all?

      Nixon did that for Ike.  Johnson did that for Kennedy.  (Not sure WHAT Mondale did.)  GHWB did it for Reagan after a fashion (although HE coined the term Voodoo Economics).  Don't forget Quayle...  Alhough it helps to know how to spell "Potato."

      by polecat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 03:12:50 PM PDT

      •  Because veeps can have an impact on the

        president's policies and they can actually become president in the next four years.

        I don't care what Nixon or Johnson did.
        Veeps should not be the attack dogs and it doesn't even work. It usually backfires. You can't sway most voters with it.

        by elender on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:28:58 PM PDT