|
In no particular order (and, of course, IMHO):
1. His showing in 2000 was poor. Yes, he won, but the margin was way too slim; hence Florida etc. He didn't get Tennessee; this looks bad. The fact is, he didn't run a very good campaign; his tactics were flawed.
2. Regardless of what we all know about 2000, the public doesn't necessarily see him as the victor. All the "Sore Loserman" rhetoric took hold. This creates problems for 2004 in that he has to fight against contemporary Republican rhetoric AND rhetoric from 2000.
3. He may genuinely want to get away from all this (and who can blame him after what happened).
4. You could argue that 9/11 makes him vulnerable (in that the Right has been mercilessly repeating their nonsense about how the attacks were Clinton/Gore's fault).
5. The DLC is weird. They don't think the way we do; they seem more interested in appeasement and detente with our (domestic) enemies than in winning anything. Lieberman has become their dishrag; he plays a role that Gore refuses to play. So maybe that gang is sick of Gore and talked him out of it.
6. The Clintons could also have played a role in discouraging him, with an eye towards Hillary '08 (or Hillary '04).
7. Given the tremendous paradigm shift in the world during these years, Gore is vulnerable because he comes across as an "old" politician with "old" solutions. This is of course nonsense but it would be effective. Dean and Clark (and the others) seem up-to-the-minute while Gore would remind us (fondly, for some) of a vanished, bygone era. Maybe this would be a positive and not a negative, but why take the chance?
8. Maybe he just doesn't have the guts any more. I'll bet Florida seriously rattled him; from a psychotheraputic standpoint he's probably planning on staying away from the National stage for a while.
Just my thoughts.
|