The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. - Wm. Blake

Friday, August 12, 2005


This piece by Gary Hart makes me think one thing:

Gore in '08?

He's the only viable anti-war candidate the Dems have. Do we need one? Well, as Hart puts it:
If ... the opposition party, in this case the Democrats, has hand-cuffed, blind-folded, gagged, and hog-tied itself to a failed invasion and occupation in the Middle East, where will the expanding majority of Americans look for a representative, a spokesperson, a voice for their anger, frustration, and distrust at being misled?

The circumstances suggest it should be a Senate or House Democratic leader, a recognized authority on foreign policy constantly seen on the Sunday talk shows, certainly one of the many “leaders” lining up to seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 2008.

Strangely, no one in any of those categories comes to mind. Their voices are silent. Thus, both they and the party they claim or presume to represent look dumbstruck, awkward, pitiful, and timid. Where the single greatest issue of the day, and one of the most potent issues of our time, is concerned, there is no courageous opposition.

Anyone who's seen Gore speak since late '02 knows that "courageous opposition" describes him very well. And, in the words of a well-known war booster, he was proved fucking right. That's got to be pretty powerful. He stood up and spoke truth to power, was ridiculed for it (including, disgustingly, by the late Michael Kelly, for whom I haven't the least mourning).

The counterargument is that Gore is damaged goods, and that the "20 month War Against Gore" would be reinstated instantly. If Republicans hate him, and the press hates him, how can he win? Well, I think an awful lot of people who were (subtly) swayed by the internet-Love Canal-farm chores BS in 2000 really wish he'd been president for the last 5 years. Furthermore, the Clinton Years look better and better all the time - stat of the day: the much-ballyhooed 207,000 new jobs last month would have been 69th-best in the Clinton Years.

As it happens, I had been mentally composing a Why Not Hillary post before I saw the Hart piece. And obviously the non-Iraq elements play very similarly, plus I think Hillary will get a net gain as the first viable female candidate. But an awful ot of Americans are hungry for straight talk on Iraq, and a Hillary campaign simply can't provide it (unless they're in the midst of some brilliant Two Year Plan to position her perfectly come late '07).

So I dunno. I'd kind of like to see Gore give it a go, and let the best candidate win


Post a Comment

<< Home