2012 Presidential Election

Loading...

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Why Al Gore Will Vanquish Hillary Clinton in 2008


The one word answer is Iraq. As much as Hillary will try to spin the issue, the simple fact of the matter is that she like John Kerry voted to give George W. Bush authorization to invade Iraq in October of 2002, a decision which has proven to be the equivalent of tossing a stammering drunk man the keys to drive the country over a cliff. Here is a text of the floor speech she gave in the Senate on October 10, 2002, the day the vote was taken.
In the 2008 Democratic primaries, Mrs. Clinton more than likely will be facing Al Gore, a candidate with equal name recognition and financing, broader international experience, and proven national appeal. Her Iraq vote in 2002 will prove to be the key differentiator between the two, serving as the decisive nail in the coffin of her presidential ambitions.
Al Gore wasn't in the Senate in October 2002, having 'lost' the previous presidential election less than two years earlier by 537 votes in Florida, although he got 543,895 more votes than Bush in the popular vote. This no doubt saved him from making a tough decision regarding the Iraq authorization vote, but the evidence shows that even if he were in the Senate , he would have joined the 23 other Senators who voted no. Here is the transcript of a speech Gore gave in San Francisco on September 23, 2002, some 17 days before Mrs. Clinton gave her talk on the Senate floor:
"The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized... I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted....Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment - right now - is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat."
Sounds eerily prescient, doesn't it? Al Gore was spot on regarding this critically important issue and Hillary Clinton was catastrophically wrong. It is doubtful that either will have a more important decision to make for the remainder of their lives. Over four years later America is still paying an incredibly high price for this foreign policy blunder, an error that Gore said in an interview last month was the
“worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States.” Hillary on the other hand has steadfastly refused to apologize for her vote, instead trying to muddy the issue by doing things like grilling Don Rumsfeld at Senate hearings, trying to make it seem like she didn't vote to give Bush authorization. Nice try Hillary but it won't work; when it comes to the issue of Iraq, Democratic primary voters have proven to have long memories and to not be very unforgiving. Witness Joe Lieberman's experience with them in Connecticut last summer.
It has been said that the only cure to the desire to be president for a person who has run unsuccessfully before is an autopsy. However if one were to believe what Al Gore has been saying over the past six years, it would seem that he is about as likely to run for president in 2008 as George W. Bush is to be the next presidential bust placed on Mount Rushmore. He has said about a billion times that he is a 'recovering politician', and that he 'has no interest' in running again. Keep in mind Mr. Gore not only has run before, but has run and won by over a half million votes. It is unfathomable that he doesn't harbor a serious desire to run again. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. just to name a recent few are all men who failed in their first try at the White House only to run again and win at a later date. Indeed Gore's coyness on the subject only feeds into the buzz and mania that will occur when he finally does toss his hat into the ring. He has sat on the board of directors of Apple Computer for almost four years now, along with Apple CEO Steve Jobs, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Do you think those two know a thing or two about marketing or brand management?
Time is on Al Gore's side. All of the recent bluster over Barack Obama, and Hillary's status for the past two years as the anointed nominee actually mean very little. One need only look back to Howard Dean and the last Democratic nominating process to witness a candidate who was hot early on and a shoe-in to win, only to flame out when it actually came time for the actual voters to vote. Expect a formal announcement of Gore's running to come in or around May of 2007, roughly coinciding with the release of his next book "The Assault on Reason".
The seminal moment in the campaign will occur in a debate among the Democratic contenders in the winter of 2008. The surviving field by then will most likely consist of Hillary, Gore and perhaps John Edwards. With Iraq engulfed in worsening bloodshed and flames, the dialogue will go something like this, with Al Gore turning to face Hillary and saying, "With all due respect Senator Clinton, you voted to give President Bush authorization to invade Iraq. Faced with a critical decision vital to our nation's security, you chose wrong."
In addition to being the only serious candidate who has been consistently right on Iraq, Gore has been riding a seemingly endless wave of good press after the release of his hugely successful global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". He's even made strides to lighten up his stiff demeanor, with well received performances recently on Saturday Night Live and Jay Leno. His candidacy in 2008 will no doubt be cathartic for Democratic primary voters who will leap at the chance to right the wrong (Bush v. Gore) that happened in 2000. And last but not least, Americans love a good comeback story.

DIGG THIS







24 comments:

Kristofer D Wilson said...

A very interesting vote. Al Gore has had some very good press over here with his environmental credentials, and the fact that he should have beaten Dubya in 2000. Also, his record as VP should stand him in good stead. If he should win the Democratic nomination, who do you think he would choose as his running mate?

Anonymous said...

Al Gore is yesterdays news. No one takes him or his lack of charisma seriously. The next President will be Barack Obama. Book it.

AShiningCity said...

Nice blog.

I think that Al Gore certainly has a good shot. He has changed since 2008... more himself.

Gore and Edwards? You never know!

San Soucri said...

This might be long but here it is.

The Democratic Party rarely looks back on a loser of a Presidential race. Adalie Stevenson was the last Dem nominee to run two losing campaigns. But with Al Gore, he won in 2000, at least the popular vote.

Al Gore does have a reason to run again, but he should have done so in 2004. But he could end up like Richard Nixon, losing in 1960 but winning in 1968.

I do not believe he will enter the race. He is old news, as stated above. The Democrats NEED/MUST! move forward and look to new members, not old ones.

Hillary will fade fast in the primary and only her money will keep her in playing distance. I hope she reconsiders her options and goes for Majority Leader instead. see www.sansoucri.blogspot.com

I believe this race is between John Edwards and Barak Obama, and that those two will be the ticket for the Dems come 2008.

Again, Democrats must look forward and not at the past. Democrats have a hard time letting go of the past but they need to do so if they want to win.

Stop fretting about losing in 2000, stop complaining Bush is President (6 YRS running, stop complaining we are in Iraq (figure out how to win the war and get out soon), and look to what the future has to offer (Edwards-Obama 08')!

Marc McDonald said...

I'm not convinced that Gore really wants to run. I think he (quite rightly) is wary of the Great Republican Slime Machine and he's weary of the blizzard of attacks that he'll inevitably be the target of, should he run. He's probably dismayed at the fact that, the last time he ran, he was not only the target of vicious attacks ("Al Gore claims he invented the Internet!"), but that these same attacks were given credence by the MSM.
In short, he may well be sick of the whole corrupt, sick, spectacle that modern American politics has become. Gore may feel that he can get more accomplished in the long run, outside the realm of presidential politics.
Marc McDonald
BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com
BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com

deuddersun said...

Excellent post ripper. I hope you are right. Obama needs more time in Congress to establish himself, Hillary is a whore who will sell herself to anyone she thinks will give her what she wants, Edwards would make a great running mate with Gore.

Wouldn't it be interesting though, to see a Clinton-Clinton ticket? Bill could run as VP, nothing stopping that.

At any rate, I will vote for whoever the Dems put up. I'd rather vote for Bozo the Clown than another Republi-con.

d.

San Soucri said...

There can never be a Clinton-Clinton ticket.

Bill cannot run for Vice-President because he would be next in line for the Presidency. Read the consistution.

Hillary will not get the nomination.

Edwards is not running to be Vice-President this year, he will not take the second slot again.

Gore should have ran in 2004 and not 2008.

It will be Edwards-Obama 08'

San Soucri said...

I should learn how to spell consititution...

Cinnamon said...

"she like John Kerry voted to give George W. Bush authorization to invade Iraq in October of 2002, a decision which has proven to be the equivalent of tossing a stammering drunk man the keys to drive the country over a cliff"

Hear, hear!

Still, I'm having doubts about America's political consciousness. That was some time ago and unless the news-spinners agree to make this issue circulate a few news cycles, it probably won't gain much traction.

That and the fact that Hillary plays more hardball than Gore, along with the republican mudslinging and the usual overwhelm of soundbites over solid reporting in election years I have a hard time believing Gore will be a contender this time.

Personally though, I support him 100% as the's the only Dem out there who fights for certain issues I hold dear.

Bryce said...

great post... I hope Gore does run again in 2008. I also like the idea of a Edwards, Gore ticket.

Floyd said...

Great post Ripper, it would be interesting to see Gore in the ring. And like deuddersun said anything would beat a Republi-con. And being an environmentalist addict, of course Gore would get my vote and wanting to save the planet like he does, it just puts a big target on his back for the neo-cons.

The guy really has an uncanny ability of being correct on most things, like the environment and like on Iraq. Edwards has some good ideas also, I saw him being grilled on CNN and he handled it pretty well, but still a little rough around the edges.

Whoever the nominee turns out to be they must know how to debate with the media, with the facts, because the media is skewed against reporting the whole story, the nominee will not only have to beat the opponent but will also have to beat back the skewed reporting of the media.

genn6 said...

Gore-Edwards would simply be an unbeatable ticket. I'm Marc McDonald on this, I don't know Gore really wants to run. But if he does, he's in. I think the new book will have a huge impact. You have to believe Gore's closest friends and advisers are absolutely BEGGING him to run now.

Good call, Ripper. "You heard it here first."

Obama's too inexperienced and Hillary's too centrist for teh Presidency. If Gore doesn't run, call it as Edwards-Obama '08. Hillary needs to just stay in New York. I know a lot of political "middle-grounders" and they don't even want her in.

IC said...

Great blog, and thanks for your comment on mine.

But I gotta tell you, Gore isn't running. He's making too much of an impact now to venture into a race that might cost him credibility or political capital. If he runs, I think he has a good as shot as anyone, but nothing's guaranteed. And a loss will set his environmentalist agenda back.

Sometimes, politicians can do a lot more good when they're out of politics and away from the gridlock and partisanship.

Please read more on the presidential race at presidentialpolitics.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Are you kidding? With the exception of the left Gore is old news to Independents and centrist dems. America is looking for new leadership, one without a history in Washington....Gore doesnt fit the bill

Sun Warrior said...

I'll bookmark this, and check back in a year...

...pretty convincing...

Leo said...

I think you are right Gore will probably run in '08 and a mess in Iraq will certainly help him. He may,though, not be able to change the publics perception of him as stiff and cold.

I have always felt that Gore has no one but himself to blame for losing in 2000. He should not have distanced himself from President Clinton. The embracing of a popular president would have given him the election.

Hillary Clinton, who is no ideologue, certainly misjudged the wind as she held out her finger trying to divine the right decision- on Iraq in the eyes of the constituency. There may still be time for her to remake herself but the time grows short.

San Soucri said...

Gore will not run...

Al Gore is the past and not the future. I don't understand why Democrats want to live in the past.

Say what you will about the election 2000; if Gore had won his home state he would be President.

John Edwars and Barak Obama are the future of the party. They are the ones the party shoudl gravitate towards.

Hillary Clinton, albetit centrist (which is not bad), is old news as well. She is better off as Majority Leader of the Senate - See my post on her - .

As for Gore-Edwards, no one runs to be in the second slot 2 election cycles running.

Denis Kucinich needs to bow out, Joe Biden is a long shot (he would best serve as Sec. of State), Vilsack and Richardson may be dark horses, and I just read on the Drudge Al (BIGGEST RACIST IN AMERICA) Sharpton may run.

For me: Edwards-Obama 2008!

fester said...

Just one minor quibble about this post:

" This no doubt saved him[Gore losing in 2000] from making a tough decision regarding the Iraq authorization vote, but the evidence shows that even if he were in the Senate , he would have joined the 23 other Senators who voted no"

If Gore was the President in 2002, then the Iraq war would never have been on the agenda. We can make this conclusion by examining his words before the vote, his view on how to deal with Iraq and his views on how to deal with Al-Quaeda, and finally with his probable circle of advisors. None of this indicators support the idea that Gore would have wanted to invade Iraq in 2002.

taureandevi said...

Very informative post. Thanks for sharing your views.

Danielle a.k.a. taureandevi.blogspot.com

Cinnamon said...

Al Gore has decided to opt out to fight a different campaign,

Jan. 15 -Al Gore says that he will not run in the 2008 election, saying he was involved in "a different kind of campaign."

Al Gore, who is currently in Japan promoting his award-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth", spoke with journalists in Tokyo, saying, "The U.S. should be leading the world toward a solution for this climate crisis instead of leading in the other direction."

The United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, which mandates cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the 2008-2012 period, saying the agreement would be harmful to the U.S. economy.

As host of the 1997 talks that forged the protocol, the Japanese government has urged major polluters, including the United States, China and India, to work harder to combat climate change, most recently during a visit by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Europe last week.

The documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was inspired by a series of multi-media presentations about climate change that Mr. Gore regularly delivers to audiences around the world.


http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoChannel.aspx?storyid=42e6e16439492e529e13ef0f9e5165277761a7e1

caffeine soldier said...

Great story, MR. Really, Gore shouldn't be counted out. Thx!

Anonymous said...

I would ask people to seriously think about a Gore/Richardson ticket. Richardson is also very experienced, pragmatic, and a successful governor. They have worked together before and would bring a much needed confidence back to the executive branch.

N.Sami

Anonymous said...

Gore's motivation has stayed the same. He purposely didn;t run in '04 b/c he saw the numbers and knew that President Bush would be very diffcult to defeat as the President was a much tougher candidate in '04 than in 2000. But in 2008, th eGOP will find difficulty finding as tough a candidate that can unite all of the factions of its party and Gore may have wisely realized that. A few things he needs todo however: no more anti-American rants abroad, no more spiteful speeches about the President (especially since he's not on the ballot). he needs to return to the pro-free trade stance that he had in the early 90's and get rid of this Edwards-Keeey-type protectionism from teh Dem Party and finally the big winner: make fuel-efficiency his top issue. It wins voters from both sides-environmentalists in teh Dem Party and within the GOP he'll find peopel who are interested on these issues for national security reasons. If Gore follows this formula, he can do what Nixon did in 1968-8 yrs after he lost a close one as the incumbent VP and in the middle of a period of an unpopular war.

Kira said...

I'm voting for Al Gore. Gore/Obama might be interesting.