Democratic insiders stiff Gore in survey: One-third back 2004 White House run
Not that this should come as a shock to anyone, but most Democratic insiders think Al Gore is damaged goods. It's a sad truth, even though poor Al's just being himself. After all, he did win the popular vote in 2000, only to see Shrub steal the election. By all rights, he deserves another shot, but in order for the Democrats to have any hope of success in 2004, they desperately need to find a new standard-bearer.
The Los Angeles Times poll of 312 Democratic National Committee members -- roughly three-quarters of the committee's total membership -- suggests the contest is wide open, with none of the top possible candidates standing out as having particularly broad support.
Another poll released Sunday, by Time and CNN, shows that just more than a third of Americans think there is a Democrat who can defeat President Bush in 2004, and half think there is not.
Thirty-six percent in the Time-CNN poll favored Gore, while 26 percent said they would support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton aides have said she is not planning to run in 2004. All other potential candidates were in single digits.
The poll of 474 Democrats or those who lean Democratic was conducted Nov. 13-14. It had an error margin of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Only 35 percent of the DNC members polled for the Los Angeles Times said Gore should run again, while 48 percent said he should not and 17 percent were undecided.
Asked who they favor in the 2004 race, 46 percent of the respondents said they had no preference. Out of a list of 10 prospective candidates, 19 percent of those polled named Gore as their pick, 18 percent backed Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and 13 percent named Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, the outgoing Democratic leader in the House, was chosen by 10 percent. The other possible candidates were in single digits, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the 2000 vice presidential nominee, who garnered 4 percent.
"It looks like a party that's desperately seeking fresh faces," said Charlie Cook, a nonpartisan campaign analyst in Washington.
I admire Gore for taking the high road in 2000. He had every right to cry foul and continue the fight. When he backed down, it was clear that he felt that what might have been right for him personally might not have been good for the country. I know I'm going to get hammered for saying this, but Gore did not lose the election in 2000. It was stolen, pure and simple. Nothing will change that, and I think when the history books are written, that fact will be reflected. Even so, if Gore hadn't lost his home state of Tennessee, no one would have cared or noticed the clusterf*** that was Florida.
The Democratic Party needs to realize that the 2004 Presidential cycle is already upon us. Time's a-wasting, and they need to find a candidate who can galvanize both the party and traditionally Democratic voters. Right now, there is no one on the horizon, but there is precedent for this sort of thing. Jimmy Carter started from the back of the pack, and Bill Clinton also managed to come back from the dead. (Of course, that means identifying a viable candidate first.) It's going to take a similar performance to defeat Shrub in 2004, and while that is certainly possibly, the odds decrease with each passing day and no candidate in sight.
What the Democrats need is a candidate who is articulate, passionate, and wholly lacking in baggage. Hillary Clinton meets 2 of the 3 critera, but will only galvanize the Right-Wing Nutcases whose visceral hatred of her defies rational explanation. Personally, I think Clinton would make an excellent candidate, but not in this election cycle, when the Democratic Party needs to find a way to unify it's base. You're on the clock, ladies and gentlemen....
