A Nobel Prize does not a viable candidacy make
I'm reposting this from my response to
shelleybear in her latest post, because it's undoubtedly the beginning of all the noise my friends are likely to make (yes,
redaxe, I'm looking at you) about Al Bore Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday and how he absolutely should run for President again now because of it and the halo he's gained from the popularity of his environmental message.
My response to this notion: Oh, God, please, NO!!!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Ralph Nader did NOT cost Al Gore the 2000 election--Al Gore did! All the experts said it was Gore's to lose going in two years prior, and damned if he didn't go right out and lose it. He had all the advantages in his column: a borderline moron as a GOP opponent; the best campaigner alive, Bill Clinton, squarely in his camp (yes, yes, I know, he was a two-edged sword, but no one can fault his political smarts, just his libido and self-control); eight years of a rip-roaring economy; a gigundo federal-budget surplus; relative peace in the world; and all the big Democrat money behind him.
And he squandered it all on repeated attempts to "remake" himself, unclear policy statements and flip-flopping, picking "Holy Joe" Lieberman as a running mate, and opportunistically using his family as a campaign tool (remember that squick-inducing kiss with Tipper on the convention podium? I sure as hell wish I didn't...), plus >0 charisma and putting people to sleep on the stump. In the end, too many people who desperately wanted to avoid Bush still just couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for Gore (those that even showed up at the polls at all)...and that, and that alone, was what threw the election in Florida to the courts. (GOP state officials' chicanery in the recount was what kept it there; thank you ever so much, Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and may you both roast stark naked in the lowest, hottest circle of Hell for eternity.) If Gore had run even half as effective a campaign as he'd been expected to, Nader's vote would not have been enough to matter at all.
No one bears more of the blame for the 2000 debacle than Gore himself, as far as I'm concerned. His running again would be a disaster for the Dems and ensure GOP hegemony for another two terms; he absolutely must NOT be given another chance to run the party into the ground in 2008. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton's baggage (and you can say plenty!) or Barack Obama's inexperience, at least they're halfway electable; Gore simply isn't, Nobel or no Nobel.
You don't agree? Bring it. He wasted all the faith and hard work we invested in him seven years ago, and I'm heartily sick of the sumbitch-and of people saying he can be the party's salvation this time. If you believe that, I've got a pair of bridges in New Orleans I wanna talk to you about; no checks, please-cash only, and in small bills.
shelleybear in her latest post, because it's undoubtedly the beginning of all the noise my friends are likely to make (yes,
redaxe, I'm looking at you) about Al Bore Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday and how he absolutely should run for President again now because of it and the halo he's gained from the popularity of his environmental message.
My response to this notion: Oh, God, please, NO!!!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Ralph Nader did NOT cost Al Gore the 2000 election--Al Gore did! All the experts said it was Gore's to lose going in two years prior, and damned if he didn't go right out and lose it. He had all the advantages in his column: a borderline moron as a GOP opponent; the best campaigner alive, Bill Clinton, squarely in his camp (yes, yes, I know, he was a two-edged sword, but no one can fault his political smarts, just his libido and self-control); eight years of a rip-roaring economy; a gigundo federal-budget surplus; relative peace in the world; and all the big Democrat money behind him.
And he squandered it all on repeated attempts to "remake" himself, unclear policy statements and flip-flopping, picking "Holy Joe" Lieberman as a running mate, and opportunistically using his family as a campaign tool (remember that squick-inducing kiss with Tipper on the convention podium? I sure as hell wish I didn't...), plus >0 charisma and putting people to sleep on the stump. In the end, too many people who desperately wanted to avoid Bush still just couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for Gore (those that even showed up at the polls at all)...and that, and that alone, was what threw the election in Florida to the courts. (GOP state officials' chicanery in the recount was what kept it there; thank you ever so much, Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and may you both roast stark naked in the lowest, hottest circle of Hell for eternity.) If Gore had run even half as effective a campaign as he'd been expected to, Nader's vote would not have been enough to matter at all.
No one bears more of the blame for the 2000 debacle than Gore himself, as far as I'm concerned. His running again would be a disaster for the Dems and ensure GOP hegemony for another two terms; he absolutely must NOT be given another chance to run the party into the ground in 2008. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton's baggage (and you can say plenty!) or Barack Obama's inexperience, at least they're halfway electable; Gore simply isn't, Nobel or no Nobel.
You don't agree? Bring it. He wasted all the faith and hard work we invested in him seven years ago, and I'm heartily sick of the sumbitch-and of people saying he can be the party's salvation this time. If you believe that, I've got a pair of bridges in New Orleans I wanna talk to you about; no checks, please-cash only, and in small bills.