I do think it is good for Dems though to at least question Hilliary as the nominee. Some seem it is a foregone conclusion. Gore could challenge her or at least keep door open for others.
Demrepdan, I'm surprised and interested to see you had some of the same thoughts I did. When I first heard Gore endorsed Dean, I thought simply, "It's all over- the Clinton Gore behemoth is behind Dean, and the primaries are finished before they started."
But that does not explain it. Why were Gore and Dean having private conversations about Iraq while most Dem leaders, including Kerry and, to some degree, Daschle, still supported it? Why has Gore ignored completely the candidates widely thought to be the Clinton's men, like Wes? And Gore has been moving farther and farther left...
Suddenly, it all fell into place like a jisaw puzzle. The Clinton-Gore behemoth is a myth, and always was. Gore was riding Clinton's presidency since 1992 so he could run in 2000, like most of us thought, but he never did accept any of the centrist portions of Clintonism. He is still the same Mad Lib who briefly broke through every now and then, as when he called global warning a greater threat to the country than any foreign nation. He can be moderate when he has to, but he has a better idea now.
I'd been assuming the dems would lose 2004, and in '08 either Hillary or Gore, not both, would run for and easily win the nomination. But now, I think something completely different has emerged. Gore will run AGAINST Hillary. Hillary will represent Bill's glory days, though a bit to his left, while Al will be the standard bearer of the far left. If Dean picks up the nomination, he could have time to make radical changes in the party (ie, expelling McAuliffe) so that a new, lefty establishment will favor him.
It's the argument of Dean as Goldwater, who invigorates the party ideologically, but is smashed at the polls, and Gore as Nixon, who picks up the benefits. But unlike Tricky Dick, whom neither moderates nor conservatives quite trusted since Nixon played both of them like a fiddle and was really part of neither, Gore will be like Barry returned, sticking to his lefty guns. Also, Gore has reached the level of nearly a Christ figure in parts of the democratic party, and his Second Coming will be greeted with Rapture.
The problem is, I think the situation is different. In '68, weird things were happening in the South that changed the map of American politics. Vietnam and the culture wars had changed the face politics naionwide. The favorite dem was assassinated. And the election could still almost have gone either way. If Dean loses bad next year and takes several senators down with him, and Gore does the same in 2008 (depending on the GOP nominee), American politics could start to get really, really weird. The nation won't stand for a GOP that's as dominant as THAT. But the dems will no longer be a viable opposition. Could a new 1860 be approaching?
Of course, there are other possibilities. Hillary could win the nomination, and maybe win the election (depending on the GOP nomination- they need a moderate, like Giuliani, but they might get cocky and stupid.) A true moderate, like Evan Bayh, might win the nomination and start to make the dems a powerful party once more (though given Joe's dismal failure, that may be tough.) or something I haven't thought of yet might happen.
Thoughts?
The Gore as Nixon thing wouldn't work. People will be aghast that Gore's radicalism has come out of the closet again. Voters already look at Gore as a Benedict Arnold. Al Gore has turned his back on the Glory Days of the Clinton Presidency. It was a huge blunder for him to not have President Clinton campaigning for him in 2000. Al screwed up his own chances. He could have ridden the coat tails of the Clinton Presidency, despite the Lewinsky ordeal, and the bizarre impeachment [for Clinton's lies about SEX].
Home
2012
