Does Gore Dare To Enter The 2008 Presidential Elections
Confessions Of A Political JunkieI wonder if Al Gore thinks he's the only one in this country to feel like he just crashed and burned now that Election 2000 has been declared over and done with. He mustn't because he has lots of company on both sides of the political fence feeling the same pain, the same angst, the same thirst and hunger for just one more shot of election conflict.
By Thursday, December 14, the withdrawal symptoms were evident in homes, work places even the shopping malls, only blizzard like conditions and below freezing temperatures kept minds and bodies otherwise occupied, when what people really wanted was another fix of the outrageous opinions, mudslinging spin, one-sided media reporting and interpretations, frenzied exaggerations, and more counter lawsuits.
Even though Americans were growing weary, (let any unexpected occurrence go on for thirty days or more and people say they've had enough) the unfolding process of deciding the presidential election had now taken on a life of its own and that life infiltrated our lives via our cable televisions, our radios, our internet use, our newspapers, even our personal communications.
My week day mornings would begin promptly at 7AM by flipping on all the major news networks "morning shows" Good Morning America, The Early Show, The Today Show. Up front, the first item of their opening greetings was about the election counting process in Florida or where the lawsuits and counter lawsuits stood. If you tuned into cable you would automatically tune in CNN and get an update every five
minutes.
On mornings when there was nothing major to report from the night before, the hosts of these shows would be hard pressed to give the public something of real news so they would bring on their talking heads who spouted their carefully camouflaged slanted opinions. I must confess, even though I was getting sick of listening to them and their pseudo truth-in-reporting babble, I craved word of my side (the guy I voted for) winning even an inch.
After the morning shows were over I needed more news, I needed up to the minute information, I'd log onto the internet. If I wanted straight news I'd go to AP or UPI or Reuters, but after a few early days of this I became dissatisfied with the "straight" news stories. I wanted something with a little more meat on it, a little more insight into the reasons why, I wanted the motivations, the inclinations or sway. Towards the end I think I was looking for a little sign of blood letting, my appetite having become so ravenous.
If one wants to know what there is to know and let it set right with you so you can get on with the rest of your day, your next fix must be to read the newspapers and opinion-editorials, preferably written in by
editors and writers of the same political persuasion as yours, e.g.. liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. I now have thirty-six newspapers on my internet favorites list that I tapped into each morning, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, and more.
Are you thinking I'm a liberal, guess again. I'm a journalist and need well rounded news sources and if you wonder how I can say that and you recognize the first group as liberal papers, then you get my point.
Many conservative news and editorial services and newspapers come by the way of the internet such as the Washingtontimes.com, the Detroit News in detnews.com, Newsmax.com and Worldnetdaily.com, to mention a few.
Now the day comes to drive time or if you are lucky to work a job where your hands are occupied but you needn't worry about distractions, your next super intake of the election phenomenon comes from "talk radio." Yes these talk guys can really get you thinking and feeling and sometimes calling. They can rile you up no matter what side you're on. Sometimes they will give you information you hadn't hear or read which can make you feel better or madder. Again it doesn't matter what your politics is, talk radio can make you feel like a real patriot for your side, all twisted and churning with anger or uplifted and cheery with delight, it just depends on what is said and who said it. It's the real pulse of America you're getting, not some lopsided, filtered poll. You're hearing other Americans calling and voicing their ideas and thoughts, their doubts and fears, their hopes and dreams.
Of course what's dinner time without Dan, Tom and Peter. Again the networks' nightly news leaves something to desire when cable television gives you more than five minutes and more depth to a story like the election mess down in Florida. The networks can only give you a "blurb" and then a quick summary.
PBS gives the viewer more time and brings on the academicians and lawyers and then the talking heads. Thus they appear to be a step up from the networks but only a step, since objectivity in reporting seems to be missing from most news shows altogether.
At about 8 PM the fun really begins and it can go on into the wee hours of the morning if you have cable television and don't need your beauty sleep. Had you noticed many of your family or co-workers looking a rather haggard from November 9 through December 12? Who needs sleep when you can feed off the media frenzy and the plate of tasty tidbits they offer you via Larry King and Geraldo Rivera, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams and Paula Zahn, CNBC, CNN and Fox News.
These cable talking heads will host interviews with politically pointed and slanted questions, demonstrate on how and how not be able to make a "dimpled chad", they will have guest on who will tell the world and viewing public what a stupid idiot or scoundrel your candidate is, and then they will pontificate on the many ways the election will be decided, (did you notice that towards the end, no one wanted to be as wrong as they all were on election night, so all bets on the finish were off. ) And so it went, the same shows repeating themselves throughout the night.
As I tossed and turned and the clock striking two, three, four, my one fist would pound the pillow to make it more comfortable and sleep inducing, while I fingered the remote control with the other hand flipping between CNN and CNBC wanting more, needing more, needing so much more!
Pleasant election conversations with people, relatives, co-workers, what were those? If the person or persons you were speaking with agreed with your political persuasion, then you would commensurate for hours over the latest election details with your new best friends, exasperatedly wishing the opposition would just give up. If they didn't agree with your politics, ( as the members of my own family didn't with mine) it could go one of two very different ways. You either parted quickly and amicably without saying a word about the election or you argued for hours and ended up screaming obscenities at each other!
And so it went for thirty-five days and it has been so very hard to let go. I find myself craving the anguish my body had adjusted itself to. I'm waking up and finding myself upright and at attention to the first utterance that comes out of Katie Couric's mouth. I go online and look for dirt on either of the candidates , a vile move by one or the other's campaign managers, or a derogatory word or two from an editor about the whole stinking mess of the election process in Florida. Alas, none are to be had. Cable news has no attraction for me now, neither does talk radio, though I still tune in out of habit, I find that it is too distracting unless I'm driving otherwise just listening takes up too much of my time. Dan, Tom and Peter, to tell the truth I don't really care if I never see them again and the same goes for the guysand gals on PBS. The cable talking heads on CNN, CNBC and Fox, I wonder if each will ever be able to get a life again. After 35 days would they even know how. For all it is over, truly over and now I must wean myself from my political election junkie habit.
So Al, you are not alone feeling the pain, the angst, the same thirst and hunger. As Shakespeare wrote at the end of one of his plays, "All are punished, all are punished."
Referenced Article: CLINTON VS. GORE?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20060913/cm_uc_crpbux/pat_buchanan20060913
On Saturday on MSNBC, this writer volunteered that if Al Gore would enter the Democratic primaries, he could defeat Hillary Clinton and win the nomination. Hours later, there popped up on Drudge this headline: "Al Gore Says He Hasn't Ruled Out Second Run."
"I haven't ruled out running for president again in the future, but I don't expect to," Gore told reporters in Australia, where he has been promoting his film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."
Al must have been watching MSNBC.
And why should Al Gore cede the nomination and a place in history he coveted to the spouse of the man but for whose personal transgressions he would be president of the United States?
If Al ran, he would open with a pair of aces. To Democrats, Gore was right on the war when almost everyone else was wrong, which gives him the inside track to the antiwar vote that will be as crucial in the Democratic primaries of 2008 as it was in 1968 and 1972.
Both of the other major antiwar candidates, John Kerry and John Edwards, voted for the war -- before they voted against it. Gore opposed it from the outset. And his endorsement of Howard Dean, much ridiculed when Dean disintegrated weeks later, looks less like a political gaffe now than an act of principle.
Second, Gore has taken out the patent on the global warming issue, and the environmental movement remains a powerful engine of cash and campaign labor inside the Democratic Party.
Third, Hillary has slipped 11 points, from 43 to 32, in a Fox poll of Democrats as to whom they wish to see nominated. Gore has moved into second at 15, passing Kerry at 13, for whom a Gore run would probably mean the end of the line.
Clearly, Hillary has a hellish problem with her stand on the war. And though she will win a stunning re-election victory in November, that does not solve her problem with the party base. She is going to have to move on the war or be pummeled by the activist wing of the party for two years.
Fourth, as a candidate, Hillary is too programmed. She has made all the right moves in the Senate to erase her image as a militant feminist, but lacks the platform skills of Bill and cannot bring to a debate the passion of Gore, who appears to believe deeply in what he preaches on both the war and global warming.
Fifth, her position as front-runner makes her the natural target for the other candidates, while her loss of 11 points and slippage to 32 percent makes her vulnerable. In a head-to-head race, Gore runs stronger than Hillary against McCain. He is down 6, she is down 7. And while Gore has been damaged by defeats and some of his shrill speeches, he does not carry as much scar tissue as Hillary.
Sixth, there is a sense among Democrats that Hillary cannot win a general election. Her six years in the Senate have not removed the indelible impression of her eight White House years, when Americans concluded she was too polarizing and divisive a figure to lead the nation. That sentiment surfaces in every poll.
One of the reasons Gore lost in 2000, though he had a plurality of the votes, is that many Americans felt the eight-year soap opera had just gone on for too long. It had to be canceled.
A Hillary nomination run would revive all that. And while the leaks about her wanting to take Harry Reid's job rather than George Bush's seem to have been planted and malicious, the question has surely crossed her mind as to whether a nomination run would be worth it, and whether her defeat would be inevitable, even if nominated.
The advantages Hillary would have in the primaries are that she holds out the promise of being the first woman president and no one will raise more money.
If Gore wants to be president, however, this is surely his last chance, and he would have to begin to pull his old team together, many of whom have moved on, and to court state leaders, many of whom have already begun to commit to other candidates.
Hillary has the option of waiting much longer to decide when and whether to get in. Gore must decide soon after November.
When Gore said in Australia he did not rule out running, he was careful to add, "but I don't expect to." Which is understandable. Gore has a good life, fame and fortune, and the possibility of being called to serve in high office in any future Democratic administration.
But he can also see -- indeed the numbers says so -- that there is a path to the nomination, and the presidency, narrow though it may be, that has opened up for him. And it will be open for only a few months before it closes again, forever.
Al vs. Hillary. The Gores demanding that the Clintons, who once put them a heartbeat away from the presidency, stand aside, because it is Al's turn, not Hillary's. How would Bill and Hillary deal with that?
By Thursday, December 14, the withdrawal symptoms were evident in homes, work places even the shopping malls, only blizzard like conditions and below freezing temperatures kept minds and bodies otherwise occupied, when what people really wanted was another fix of the outrageous opinions, mudslinging spin, one-sided media reporting and interpretations, frenzied exaggerations, and more counter lawsuits.
Even though Americans were growing weary, (let any unexpected occurrence go on for thirty days or more and people say they've had enough) the unfolding process of deciding the presidential election had now taken on a life of its own and that life infiltrated our lives via our cable televisions, our radios, our internet use, our newspapers, even our personal communications.
My week day mornings would begin promptly at 7AM by flipping on all the major news networks "morning shows" Good Morning America, The Early Show, The Today Show. Up front, the first item of their opening greetings was about the election counting process in Florida or where the lawsuits and counter lawsuits stood. If you tuned into cable you would automatically tune in CNN and get an update every five
minutes.
On mornings when there was nothing major to report from the night before, the hosts of these shows would be hard pressed to give the public something of real news so they would bring on their talking heads who spouted their carefully camouflaged slanted opinions. I must confess, even though I was getting sick of listening to them and their pseudo truth-in-reporting babble, I craved word of my side (the guy I voted for) winning even an inch.
After the morning shows were over I needed more news, I needed up to the minute information, I'd log onto the internet. If I wanted straight news I'd go to AP or UPI or Reuters, but after a few early days of this I became dissatisfied with the "straight" news stories. I wanted something with a little more meat on it, a little more insight into the reasons why, I wanted the motivations, the inclinations or sway. Towards the end I think I was looking for a little sign of blood letting, my appetite having become so ravenous.
If one wants to know what there is to know and let it set right with you so you can get on with the rest of your day, your next fix must be to read the newspapers and opinion-editorials, preferably written in by
editors and writers of the same political persuasion as yours, e.g.. liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. I now have thirty-six newspapers on my internet favorites list that I tapped into each morning, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, and more.
Are you thinking I'm a liberal, guess again. I'm a journalist and need well rounded news sources and if you wonder how I can say that and you recognize the first group as liberal papers, then you get my point.
Many conservative news and editorial services and newspapers come by the way of the internet such as the Washingtontimes.com, the Detroit News in detnews.com, Newsmax.com and Worldnetdaily.com, to mention a few.
Now the day comes to drive time or if you are lucky to work a job where your hands are occupied but you needn't worry about distractions, your next super intake of the election phenomenon comes from "talk radio." Yes these talk guys can really get you thinking and feeling and sometimes calling. They can rile you up no matter what side you're on. Sometimes they will give you information you hadn't hear or read which can make you feel better or madder. Again it doesn't matter what your politics is, talk radio can make you feel like a real patriot for your side, all twisted and churning with anger or uplifted and cheery with delight, it just depends on what is said and who said it. It's the real pulse of America you're getting, not some lopsided, filtered poll. You're hearing other Americans calling and voicing their ideas and thoughts, their doubts and fears, their hopes and dreams.
Of course what's dinner time without Dan, Tom and Peter. Again the networks' nightly news leaves something to desire when cable television gives you more than five minutes and more depth to a story like the election mess down in Florida. The networks can only give you a "blurb" and then a quick summary.
PBS gives the viewer more time and brings on the academicians and lawyers and then the talking heads. Thus they appear to be a step up from the networks but only a step, since objectivity in reporting seems to be missing from most news shows altogether.
At about 8 PM the fun really begins and it can go on into the wee hours of the morning if you have cable television and don't need your beauty sleep. Had you noticed many of your family or co-workers looking a rather haggard from November 9 through December 12? Who needs sleep when you can feed off the media frenzy and the plate of tasty tidbits they offer you via Larry King and Geraldo Rivera, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams and Paula Zahn, CNBC, CNN and Fox News.
These cable talking heads will host interviews with politically pointed and slanted questions, demonstrate on how and how not be able to make a "dimpled chad", they will have guest on who will tell the world and viewing public what a stupid idiot or scoundrel your candidate is, and then they will pontificate on the many ways the election will be decided, (did you notice that towards the end, no one wanted to be as wrong as they all were on election night, so all bets on the finish were off. ) And so it went, the same shows repeating themselves throughout the night.
As I tossed and turned and the clock striking two, three, four, my one fist would pound the pillow to make it more comfortable and sleep inducing, while I fingered the remote control with the other hand flipping between CNN and CNBC wanting more, needing more, needing so much more!
Pleasant election conversations with people, relatives, co-workers, what were those? If the person or persons you were speaking with agreed with your political persuasion, then you would commensurate for hours over the latest election details with your new best friends, exasperatedly wishing the opposition would just give up. If they didn't agree with your politics, ( as the members of my own family didn't with mine) it could go one of two very different ways. You either parted quickly and amicably without saying a word about the election or you argued for hours and ended up screaming obscenities at each other!
And so it went for thirty-five days and it has been so very hard to let go. I find myself craving the anguish my body had adjusted itself to. I'm waking up and finding myself upright and at attention to the first utterance that comes out of Katie Couric's mouth. I go online and look for dirt on either of the candidates , a vile move by one or the other's campaign managers, or a derogatory word or two from an editor about the whole stinking mess of the election process in Florida. Alas, none are to be had. Cable news has no attraction for me now, neither does talk radio, though I still tune in out of habit, I find that it is too distracting unless I'm driving otherwise just listening takes up too much of my time. Dan, Tom and Peter, to tell the truth I don't really care if I never see them again and the same goes for the guysand gals on PBS. The cable talking heads on CNN, CNBC and Fox, I wonder if each will ever be able to get a life again. After 35 days would they even know how. For all it is over, truly over and now I must wean myself from my political election junkie habit.
So Al, you are not alone feeling the pain, the angst, the same thirst and hunger. As Shakespeare wrote at the end of one of his plays, "All are punished, all are punished."
Referenced Article: CLINTON VS. GORE?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20060913/cm_uc_crpbux/pat_buchanan20060913
On Saturday on MSNBC, this writer volunteered that if Al Gore would enter the Democratic primaries, he could defeat Hillary Clinton and win the nomination. Hours later, there popped up on Drudge this headline: "Al Gore Says He Hasn't Ruled Out Second Run."
"I haven't ruled out running for president again in the future, but I don't expect to," Gore told reporters in Australia, where he has been promoting his film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."
Al must have been watching MSNBC.
And why should Al Gore cede the nomination and a place in history he coveted to the spouse of the man but for whose personal transgressions he would be president of the United States?
If Al ran, he would open with a pair of aces. To Democrats, Gore was right on the war when almost everyone else was wrong, which gives him the inside track to the antiwar vote that will be as crucial in the Democratic primaries of 2008 as it was in 1968 and 1972.
Both of the other major antiwar candidates, John Kerry and John Edwards, voted for the war -- before they voted against it. Gore opposed it from the outset. And his endorsement of Howard Dean, much ridiculed when Dean disintegrated weeks later, looks less like a political gaffe now than an act of principle.
Second, Gore has taken out the patent on the global warming issue, and the environmental movement remains a powerful engine of cash and campaign labor inside the Democratic Party.
Third, Hillary has slipped 11 points, from 43 to 32, in a Fox poll of Democrats as to whom they wish to see nominated. Gore has moved into second at 15, passing Kerry at 13, for whom a Gore run would probably mean the end of the line.
Clearly, Hillary has a hellish problem with her stand on the war. And though she will win a stunning re-election victory in November, that does not solve her problem with the party base. She is going to have to move on the war or be pummeled by the activist wing of the party for two years.
Fourth, as a candidate, Hillary is too programmed. She has made all the right moves in the Senate to erase her image as a militant feminist, but lacks the platform skills of Bill and cannot bring to a debate the passion of Gore, who appears to believe deeply in what he preaches on both the war and global warming.
Fifth, her position as front-runner makes her the natural target for the other candidates, while her loss of 11 points and slippage to 32 percent makes her vulnerable. In a head-to-head race, Gore runs stronger than Hillary against McCain. He is down 6, she is down 7. And while Gore has been damaged by defeats and some of his shrill speeches, he does not carry as much scar tissue as Hillary.
Sixth, there is a sense among Democrats that Hillary cannot win a general election. Her six years in the Senate have not removed the indelible impression of her eight White House years, when Americans concluded she was too polarizing and divisive a figure to lead the nation. That sentiment surfaces in every poll.
One of the reasons Gore lost in 2000, though he had a plurality of the votes, is that many Americans felt the eight-year soap opera had just gone on for too long. It had to be canceled.
A Hillary nomination run would revive all that. And while the leaks about her wanting to take Harry Reid's job rather than George Bush's seem to have been planted and malicious, the question has surely crossed her mind as to whether a nomination run would be worth it, and whether her defeat would be inevitable, even if nominated.
The advantages Hillary would have in the primaries are that she holds out the promise of being the first woman president and no one will raise more money.
If Gore wants to be president, however, this is surely his last chance, and he would have to begin to pull his old team together, many of whom have moved on, and to court state leaders, many of whom have already begun to commit to other candidates.
Hillary has the option of waiting much longer to decide when and whether to get in. Gore must decide soon after November.
When Gore said in Australia he did not rule out running, he was careful to add, "but I don't expect to." Which is understandable. Gore has a good life, fame and fortune, and the possibility of being called to serve in high office in any future Democratic administration.
But he can also see -- indeed the numbers says so -- that there is a path to the nomination, and the presidency, narrow though it may be, that has opened up for him. And it will be open for only a few months before it closes again, forever.
Al vs. Hillary. The Gores demanding that the Clintons, who once put them a heartbeat away from the presidency, stand aside, because it is Al's turn, not Hillary's. How would Bill and Hillary deal with that?
posted by Gabrielle Flora Marie Cusumano | 8:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home