Dorgan Urges Gore to Give Up on Presidency
Really, I could save y'all some time and sum this post up in three words:
Al Gore is, by all indications, a thoroughly decent human being who made the unfortunate choice to associate himself with (the thoroughly demonized but nonetheless reasonably successful President) Bill Clinton. If life is all about choices and consequences, Gore is suffering the consequences of a decision that really made sense at the time. He was an activist and successful Vice President, who suffered in our sound-bite society from not being particularly photogenic. Behind all of the wooden Indian jokes is a leader who, but for the machinations of Shrub and the Supremes, would be President, and likely a successful one.
With the Democratic Party being in the condition it is now, however, Gore simply carries too much baggage to be the Party's standard-bearer in 2004. Yes, he deserves the opportunity to right the travesty that was the 2000 election, but things are different now. Post- 9.11, the tenor of political debate in this country has changed, and the Shrub Administration has done a masterful job of framing the debate in a manner that overwhelmingly favors their continued reign.
As Al Gore contemplates another run for president, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) has some crisp advice: Don't do it again.
"Al Gore is a fine person, and I like him," Dorgan said in an interview. "My feeling is that our party must turn the page."....
Dorgan said over the weekend that his views haven't changed. "Vice President Gore is pretty much a known commodity," he said. "My own view is that, at this point, I hope he will make a decision not to seek the presidency."
Dorgan's letter carries an inherent warning to other Democrats thinking of running in 2004. Democratic candidates in Republican-leaning states need financial and rhetorical support from the party's presidential nominee and national organization to avoid what happened in North Dakota in 2000, which was a Republican sweep.
Dorgan isn't the only Democratic elected official sounding off about Gore lately. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said last week he thinks Gore should not run.
"Gore would lose," Frank told the Boston Herald, adding that the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, had made Bush much more popular. "Al's been wounded," Frank said. "It's not his fault and it's unfair, but it's reality."
What the Democrats need is a new face, a tabula rasa, if you will- someone who can look forward without having to justify his past. Unfortunately, their is no one on the horizon with the name recognition who fits the bill. The Democrats in 2004 could be reduced to doing what Texas Democrats did in 1998. Faced with Shrub, who was comfortably ensconced, and hugely popular, as Governor, the Democrats tabbed Garry Mauro as their sacrificial lamb. Mauro dutifully fell on his sword and absorbed a terrible beating at the polls, and then once again faded into obscurity. Before long, Mauro will be featured on VH1's "Where Are They Now?"
Al Gore may be the best we have to offer, and he is not a bad choice by any means. If Democrats mean to win in 2004, however, Gore is not the choice begging to be made. That is the unfortunate reality that Gore and Democratic leaders need to come to grips with- and soon.
