Let’s just say that I agree with a lot of this
Of course, any antiwar candidate could criticize Hillary’s vote for the war in Iraq. But the logic of the Gore candidacy is that, unlike other Democrats, he could attack Hillary as both out of step on the war and unelectable come November. If he runs for president he would be the only candidate in either party who instantly passes the post-9/11 threshold on national security issues. Hillary’s credible case that as first lady she engaged in diplomacy and was treated abroad like a world leader would be dwarfed by Gore’s eight-year record as vice president sitting on the National Security Council.
And Gore might be the only Democrat who can solve a vexing issue facing the party: How does a candidate establish a reputation for toughness on national security while simultaneously criticizing the war? Gore supported the Gulf War and, in most Clinton administration battles over the use of force, he took the more hawkish position. He is the party’s only credible antiwar hawk.
[...]
Finally, Hillary may not be the ideal nominee to take advantage of the anti-Washington mood building in America. In presidential politics, candidates who run as credible outsiders have a remarkable record. One thing that the campaigns of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all have in common is that they successfully ran against Washington. If the current mood of disgust persists into 2008, running as an outsider may be essential. Gore can credibly run such a campaign. Hillary can’t.
I don’t expect Sen. Clinton to have a “I was wrong” moment about the Iraq War, but some of her other possible rivals might follow in Dick Gephardt’s footsteps. (via pw)
Can McCain or Giuliani pass the Dobson test, however?
Not that I’m a big fan of either, but the author in question is forgetting about McCain and Guliani.
Will the democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire finally realize that sitting Senators do not make winnable Presidential candidates?
We need to stop thinking about any current Senator as the candidate. Sitting Senators do not win Presidential elections.
America loves a comeback story. The media would treat Gore as such should he declare his candidacy. At the very least, Gore has transformed from the “wooden” image that dogged him in 2000 to a pretty passionate critic of the current Administration.
He has a realistic chance. I’m not convinced Hillary is as unstoppable in the primaries as people make her out to be. The one wild card is John Edwards, I guess. Ultimately, the nomination may vcome down to Edwards or Gore.
I’m still praying for that Bubba-esque dark horse. But I’m pretty solid on Clark as VP…
The Democratic party can surely do better.
Having said that, please, please, please nominate him. What should be an easy win for the Democrats would become far more win-able with him running.
as someone who didn’t vote for Gore, (I voted for Nader, in New York, as a pure protest vote), the guy actually has a lot going for him–his intellect and knowledge about the technical aspects of government have never been in doubt–I think a lot of voters, like myself, were turned off by his woodenness, and lack of fire in the belly.
*if* he’s gained a personality and some heart during his ‘time in the wilderness,’ then I think he’s a very viable candidate, much more so than Hillary…
I also think it’s *way* to early to start jockying about this, and I hope that he keeps in the public eye, but not as a candidate, until a later date, when he can’t be used as a punching bag by the wingnuts looking to deflect the heat.
What about the fact that Gore recently made a statement saying he has absolutely no interest in running?
I said it six months ago. Will say it now: its Hillary’s on the Democratic side.
Gore has zero chance if Hillary runs. Plus Hillary IS electable, as she has moved to the center left, and Gore has gotten increasingly shrill. A moderate Democrat can benefit from Bush fatigue; a screamer won’t.
Dugger
This is not a rhetorical question: How is a former Senator and two term Vice – President going to “credibly run against Washington”?
By 2008, Gore will not have been in the federal gov’t for 8 years, with all likelihood his primary and general election opponent will have been in either Washington or in their respective statehouse that whole time. Even your beloved Condi and her farfetched dream of running for office is a consumate DC insider.
Neither McCain nor Giuliani can pass the Dobson test, Neither do they care presumably. McCain would be opposed by the screaming mimi’s as a Ragin’ Rino, and Giuliani has sufficient skeletons so that he would be hounded to Baskerville Hell, caught in the same pincers as Harreit Miers.
McCain could carry the weight. The other one is a squirrel whose stored nuts would never last the long cold winter of a national election.
Gore can ‘credibly run against Washington’ because of the type of politician that he is–he’s a technocrat, not a pork-barrel artist…
i’m sure somebody can come up with some example to the contrary, but on the whole, Gore’s career as a legislator was noted (even by his adversaries) for his extensive knowledge about government and the substance of lawmaking (as opposed to politics).
Oliver: It’s not my theory that an “insider” can’t win — it’s Ryan Lizza’s.
Most people in the “Draft Condi” movement are betting that the Democratic nominee will be Sen Clinton. This leads them (us?) to believe that the only opponent that can beat Clinton is Rice.
Does that make Rice “draftable” if it’s not Clinton? Probably not.
But, be that as it may, the Republicans are having as much trouble finding a candidate as the Democrats.
don’t forget Wes Clark – credible on Iraq and other national security issues, a lot of support among the grassroots, although he needs to learn a lot more about campaigning if he chooses to run again. He had my support, and that of many of my colleagues, and would be a valued addition to a Democratic ticket.