Gore or Clinton (Bill)?

[RealDems]

If the 22nd amendment were not an issue, and the '08 Primary pitted former running mates Bill Clinton and Al Gore against each other, who would you support and why?

[NMDemDist2]

1. Gore

he's a level headed guy who I think would give us a steady hand as he dug us out of the mess Bushco has got us in

I think Gore is truly a public servant. While I loved and miss Clinton, I don't feel he's the man for the times we are in now.

[Placebo]

2. Clinton

Bill or Hillary. :D

[AverageJoe]

3. Clinton in a heartbeat

I like Gore, but Clinton is the Big Dog!

[RealDems]

4. I'm definitely with Gore on this one

Just to answer my own question...

Curious to see what the general mood here is about it though...

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Clinton is a gifted politician, Gore isn't

For this reason, mostly, I'd choose Big Dawg. Given that neither of them are really progressives I'd have to say that I'd choose Clinton because first of all, he could win, secondly he has hindsight now and because of his great talent, I think that he would have a better chance of getting a progressive agenda passed than Gore.

[applegrove]

7. Ditto n/t

[elshiva]

6. Gore.

This is more personal than political. Bill Clinton is in poor health and has a whole hate industry going for him.

[wyldwolf]

8. William Jefferson Clinton

[Pegleg Thd]

9. Having Bill Clinton

ready to tear the shrub a new one by running for another term you can bet your a** that the repukes won't try to repeal 22nd amendment.

[Greybnk48]

10. Clinton, hands down

I would give anything to have him back.

[WI_DEM]

11. Gore

Bill has more charisma, but I think Al would be the better president.

[roguevalley]

12. Clinton: He did it once against the tide, he can do it again. And he

would win in a landslide.

[ochazuke]

13. Thankfully, I needn't decide

because Gore would be the better adminstrator, but Clinton the better politician.

I guess I'd go with Clinton because he would be more likely to win, I figure.

BTW, if the Constitution were an issue, Gore would be president now. (It didn't stop SCOTUS from appointing shrub.)

[chaumont58]

14. Remember Gore's first decision as nominee in 2000?

He picked Lieberman as his running mate. Gore has some good points, but his first decision? Jesus!

[Jackson4Gore]

15. Gore all the way!

Clinton was a failure of his own misgivings. I believe Gore has the values, leadership, and record to get the job done! He would be the best President in the past 100 years.

[chaumont58]

17. Even with good times, Gore couldn't get elected

Clinton is the only Dem since FDR to win reelection after being elected(see Truman and LBJ). Hell of a failure, huh. What did Gore win at the national level on his own?
I don't dislike Gore. I voted for him in 2000, but let's not create a saint.

[RealDems]

22. Eh, I never paid much attention to that "only Dem since FDR" thing...

I mean, the only Democrat to LOSE re-election since FDR was Jimmy Carter. Truman didn't run, because he had served 3 years of FDR's term, and Congress was in the process of passing the 22nd amendment; Kennedy was killed; Johnson chose not to run because of Vietnam; Carter lost. So saying that Clinton was the only Dem to win re-election really ignores a lot of the circumstances. Plus, Clinton NEVER won a majority of votes. I'm not suggesting that Clinton was not an extremely gifted politician -- just disputing the idea that he is somehow an anomalie among Democrats.

I like Clinton because I think he was a good President for the American people -- at least in terms of the economy. But I also believe he was a disaster for the Democratic Party. I'm going to have to agree with Chuck Todd on this one... Clintonism has meant death for Democrats, and the Party would be better if this perfectly fine President and politician would FINALLY exit the stage.

[chaumont58]

30. None but Clinton re-elected, not many even elected

You list JFK as assassinated, LBJ as beaten by Vietnam, Carter as beaten by himself(I guess). This is a list of Dem winners since Harry Truman! Truman won in 1948! That highlights Clinton's two victories even more. As for Clinton not getting a majority, throw Ross Perot into any mix, and what would be the results? Third party candidate, Darth Nader, affected the 2000 vote enough to throw the selection to chimpie.
By your take, Clintonism was responsible for the 1994 lost of both congressional houses. Your theory may be the answer. I have not been able to come up with one. I don't know why voters would, for example, take George Nedercut over a sitting Speaker of the House(Tom Foley). That is what happened in the state of Washington. Will Clintonism explain the loss by a sitting Minority Leader(Tom Daschle)?

[RealDems]

32. Click on the left under "why we exist"

http://www.realdems.org

That pretty much sums up my argument about why Clintonism has led the Dems to defeat.

[chaumont58]

36. DLC vs Clintonism

If you want to equate the DLC and Clintonism, go ahead. I don't. I think Clinton won because he is a gifted politician. The DLC could have been on the US Olympic 'standing there' team. I'm not a DLC fan, but I'm not an enemy either. It takes all. Its a big party; there is room for alot of factions.
Al From is deluded. He thinks Clinton won because of the DLC. I don't. The DLC is just one part of the total Democrat Party, and not even a very big part. They may be able to raise money, but Howard Dean probably will be able to raise more via the internet.
I'm not sure what the DLC stands for, really. The so called National Security issue is pure bullshit as far as I am concerned. The repukes like to say Clinton destroyed the military. He didn't. See results of Iraq War, fought with Clinton's Army.
I am a Democrat because of rights, civil rights, voting rights, women's right, gay rights. I also am an atheist, and truly distrust the attempts by the organized Christian religions in this country to disolve separation of church and state. The fundies hated Clinton because they knew they had little power to influence the Clinton Administration is ways they wanted to.

[RealDems]

38. While it's true that Clinton won because of his skill

and not the DLC message, it is also true that the DLC is the Party faction that benifited from his victory. That was the only part of his campaign (and Presidency) that was imitated by Democratic governors and Senators. The argument didn't have an ounce of truth to it, but it became conventional wisdom, and the Party has been paying the price ever since. I don't however use Clintonism and the DLC completely interchangeably. I see Clintonism as a more opportunistic DLC strategy. The DLC itself truly is a Republican-lite organization, with ideological centrists like Lieberman and Bayh in their corner. Clinton wasn't THAT moderate, but he embraced the strategy in order to position himself for the election. Again -- I would put Lieberman, Bayh, Mark Warner, etc... in the DLC group, while putting Clinton (actually both Clintons), Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle, etc... in the "Clintonism" camp.

As for why I am a Democrat(which might belong in a different thread, but I still really want to respond), I usually list 5 reasons:

social justice
public responsibility
civil rights
moral foreign policy
grassroots democracy

[wyldwolf]

54. factually misleading

The site is little more than spinning, rationalizing, and trying to bend facts to fit the author's desired conclusion - but in reality it just doesn't work.


Following the Democrats' 2002 election defeats, the divisions within the Party deepened. The Old Guard, led by former Clinton staffers... But the grassroots of the Party fought back, building a new ground-up infrastructure with groups such as MoveOn.org, and propelling a little known Vermont governor to front-runner status in the Democratic Primary. Ultimately, the Old Guard prevailed in the Primary process, and as a result, the Democratic Party lost the 2004 election.

The only place "divisions" exist is in the minds of far leftists. And truth be known, Howard Dean is a part of the "old guard" - moderate Dems in the tradition of FDR, JFK, LBJ and Clinton. Obviously this passage was written by a McGovernite. George McGovern - now THERE'S a loser if we want to talk losers.

THAT wing of the party lost us the Senate in '80, '82, and '84 and the presidency by landslides in '80, '84, and '88.

Of course, there is no evidence to show that we lost the 2004 election because any "old guard" prevailed.

I challenge you to provide such evidence.

Bill Clinton remains an extraordinarily gifted politician, but the DLC is convinced that it was his centrist message, rather than his political skill that elevated him to high office.

Clinton ran on welfare reform for one thing - which is clearly a moderate position. He was recognized as a Southern moderate and his policies and campaign platform reflected as such.

The DLC "Record of Success"

1) The Democratic Party lost control of Congress and has been unable to regain it since 1994.

Before the DLC, in 1938, the Dems lost 80 House seats and six Senate seats. In the sixth year of the FDR-Truman years in 1946 the Democrats lost 13 Senate seats and 56 House seats.

This was FDR's fault, right? Oops! NO DLC there!

We lost the Senate in '80, '82, and '84. No doubt because of the stunning popularity of Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. Oops! NO DLC there...

The Democratic Party has failed to win a majority of votes in four consecutive Presidential elections since the DLC has become influential.

Hmmm... I thought Gore won the majority of votes in 2000. (yes, he was DLC)

Without the DLC, the Dems managed to lose in landslides in 80, '84, and '86.

The Democratic Party has lost its edge over Republicans in self-identified members of the Party. The gap had existed since FDR was President.

That's true. The gap has slowly grown since FDR. But there were how many years between FDR and the founding of the DLC?

The Democratic Party has lost its advantage with young voters, who are now more likely to be Republican than their parents.

Kerry won the "young vote" in 2004 - in 2004, turnout of eligible young voters increased by 9 percentage points, to 51.6 percent, up from 42.3 percent in 2000. in Ohio "the young vote" favored Kerry by a 14-point margin (and increased their share of the electorate by 7 percentage points). Without the youth vote Kerry could not have contested the state. Same in Pennsylvania, where Kerry won by only 127,000 votes, but the 1.18 million young voters (comprising 21 percent of the electorate) picked Kerry by a 20-point margin, or more than 200,000 votes; and Wisconsin, where Kerry won by fewer than 10,000 votes, but the 593,000 young voters (comprising 20 percent of the electorate) supported him by a 16 point margin, or 95,000 votes. - CNN exit poll by way of Rock The Vote

Nationally, Kerry won the youth vote with 54%.

http://www.youthvote.org/news/newsdetail.cfm?newsid=506

The DLC brags about Bill Clinton being the first Democrat to win re-election since WW2, but neglects to point out that he never received more than 49% of the vote, or that only one other Democrat in that time actually RAN for re-election.

Question - how many Democratic presidents have there been since FDR? That should tell you something, right?

Truman - Knew Korea wasn't going to be a popular war and it wasn't. Many believe Truman knew he would lose to Eisenhowe.
Kennedy - barely won his election, was assasinated
Johnson - Didn't see reelection because he knew he'd lose based on the Viet Nam war. MLK believed Johnson had to go to bring an end to the war.
Carter - Won on the wings of the Nixon scandals and lost badly in his reelection.

--- ALL before the DLC.

The site shows a graph that shows the decline of self-identified Democrats and the corresponding rise of self-identified Republicans since the DLC has gained influence.

Actually, the graph begins in 1983 - BEFORE the DLC.

And if the site creators would do some real research, they would see that that trend extended back into the late 60s when public opinion began to turn against the party that had held power in Congress for years - the Democrats.

And Clinton had the misfortune of having a popular third party candidate in his races. But still, gaining 49% when the vote was split in three... I'll take that!

The rest of that site is more of the same spinning, rationalizing, and trying to bend facts to fit the author's desired conclusion - but in reality it just doesn't work.

If I had more time this morning I would continue to pick it apart.

The author certainly tries to build his case, but history keeps getting in the way.

[Geek_Girl]

16. Clinton

I miss him :(

[RealDems]

18. To me...

Gore seems to be the one speaking out on issues that are relevant today. Clinton was great for the '90s, but the '90s are most definitely over.

[Deja Q]

19. Neither.

Clinton's the best republican president ever. We've seen his policies, I refuse to repeat them here, go search for my previous posts. There's 8 or 9 issues, like the DMCA and NAFTA, which have been abused - assuming that was the intent in the first place... But I say no more on that. For now.

Gore, since Election 2000, did his environment dance, then left to become a chair on Apple's director's board, and as such allowed the environmentally hazardous weak-battery piece of plastic rubbish "iPod" to come into existence, proving that politics is all talk and it's ALWAYS about a quick buck. Consumer groups are even going after Apple and I wish THEM well. Apple's no different than any other corporation and the people on board are there for one reason only: to make money. Not to make the cleanest or best product. But to make money. Figure it out.

http://www.computertakeback.com/bad_apple/bad_apple_biz.cfm

Give me Kucinich.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Clinton may be the "best Republican president we've ever had"...

But Chimp is by far the WORST. I'd take Clinton back in a heartbeat.

[wyldwolf]

53. that statement is false

Clinton's the best republican president ever

Clinton wasn't a republican, and there are very few issues the republicans outright own.

[ldf]

20. gore.

like they say, 9-11 changed things.

what it really changed was the ability of the republicans to take a horrific event and distort every single subsequent event, so they could turn this country into an insult to it's very purpose for being.

clinton would be too willing to compromise.

gore is angry, and rightly so. he sees what has been done, and isn't willing to let it slide in an effort to "compromise" our way ever further to the right (middle).

i think he learned a hard lesson, but running against the "moral" dilemma clinton put us in, plus being pilloried by his own party, set up a situation that was overwhelming.

it shouldn't have been, but again, i think he learned the hard way. i think he also learned that compromising (to be specific, that ass-lick lieberman) is NOT what is needed.

if you have ever really listened to his speeches where he is full of that, dare i say, rightousness, you have to admit that he is anything BUT wooden or boring.

but that is the lie that we have been sold, by many right here on du.

gore is firmly faced to the future. he knows what problems we are facing, be it politics, environment, equality. i believe he knows more than any other politican, how to get us out of this mess.

i just hope he has the chance.

[RealDems]

24. I agree with this

I know that I have moved to the left in the past 4 years... why should I believe it is insincere if Gore has done the same?

[demwing]

21. Gore. Even with everything in his favor, Clinton screwed his legacy.

We can't afford to have that kind of sloppy shit happen again.

[Demi_Babe]

23. William Jefferson Clinton

[KnowerOfLogic]

25. Gore; last few years have shown Gore stands for something. Bill stands

for himself.

[RealDems]

26. So far, I'm surprised.

I thought Gore would win -- or at least be competitive. But I'm counting 12 Clinton, 8 Gore for now. Do the New Democrats win?

[springhill]

27. Gore, by a mile.........

I think his integrity and his views, especially his awakening after 2000 has been inspirational. In fact, he is one of only a few democrats who have been outspoken in their oppostion to this administration. Now Clinton, on the other hand, I wish he would just keep his mouth shut. If I hear one more time how much he likes Bush (even though he's a murderer and a torturer) I'm gonna heave.

[RealDems]

28. Yup

Every time I see Clinton standing next to Bush, I feel betrayed.

[JI7]

29. Clinton

[BlueInRed]

31. Clinton Gore again

I would support Clinton because of his Teflon quality. I agree with Gore on more and love him as a person, but realize he's anything but Teflon. He deserves to be in the White House and I think at a minimum he should be VP again.

[Freebird12004]

33. "Bill Clinton, With Out Any Doubt"

Clinton was good for our country.

:toast:

[lojasmo]

34. Gore. Donate a few bucks...start a poll. EOM

[RealDems]

39. Can't

Wallet was stolen. Waiting for new bank card in the mail.

[lojasmo]

41. oh. Sorry to hear about that. EOM

[Crunchy Frog]

35. I would take Bill Clinton over Al Gore.

A proven winner, even if he may not be as progressive as I would like vs a loser. (Even if he did "win", it doesn't mean anything if he never took office. It shouldn't even have been close enough to steal.) And I'm not convinced that Gore, the man who chose Lieberman as his running mate, is any more progressive than Clinton was. Yeah, I've heard the argument that he's "changed" and is not the same man who ran in 2000. Does that mean that the RW meme about his continually reinventing himself is true?

I actually voted for Clinton twice. I voted for Nader rather than vote for Gore.

I certainly can see alot of flaws in Clinton's presidency, but overall, I liked the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. Given a choice between a winner with strong political skills, and a loser without them, and given that neither of them are particularly progressive, I'll place my bets on the former.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. My feelings exactly, also...

Clinton has one thing that no other living Democrat, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, has; hindsight. Clinton knows how he let the GOP beat him on certain things the first time, you can damn well bet that if he could get a second shot he wouldn't let it happen again.

[VOX]

37. Go with Gore -- let him be president **at last**!

After all, he was elected in 2000.

[Crazy Janey]

40. Al Gore has my vote

Al Gore, hands down. People have had it with Clinton and his philandering. Yes, he's still larger than life, but he could never be elected again. Who'd trust him? But even aside from this issue, Al Gore has everything it takes to be a great president--experience, intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, and a deep understanding of how the world works. I believe Al Gore could be a truly great president.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. Clinton would easily win an election even against chimp in 2004

Clinton had political talent that Gore and Kerry couldn't even come close to. Clinton left office with a very high approval rating and continues to be one of the most popular presidents in recent history. The only people that actually gave a shit about Monica were already Republicans.

[RealDems]

47. Clinton had talent in the '90s

Not to say that he doesn't still have the same extraordinary political gifts, but just that those gifts don't seem as valuable this decade. He seems overly slick in an era that values authenticity, and he seems too small-thinking for the current "bold" mood of the country. I don't know anyone who would argue that Gore is as naturally skilled politically as Clinton, but I do think Gore is more in step with today's zeitgeist.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. The only thing that's really changed about politics since then...

Is that there are simply more Republicans and more Republican media control. Oh yea, we have the internets too. Gotta love them internets.

[RealDems]

51. What about the issues?

In 1996, Clinton and Dole debated school uniforms, V-chips, and internet taxation. Fast forward to today, when we talk war, terrorism, and social security. Clinton has been pretty silent on these issues (at least in any memorable way). At the Davos conference, after reciting his obligatory line about how much he actually likes Bush, he conceded that they had major disagreements over THE ENVIRONMENT. I'm sorry, but if after these last four years, the environment is the only difference you're able to site -- you really haven't played a role in the debate.

Plus, them internets actually do make quite the difference. Elections are about grassroots organizing and are powered by the true believers. Clinton really relied on the mainstream media (i.e. he looked and sounded good on TV).

[Deaniac20]

42. Bill Clinton is a second

Although Clinton was a moderate, the reason the Democrats lost seats in 1994 was because of intra-partisan gridlock. After 12 years of being in the shadows, just being obstructionists, and even joining the boll weevils, they just weren't ready to lead, only to follow.So when they got into power, all 57 senate dems didn't know what to do with themselves. It was also because of poor marketing in regards to the health care plan, and gays in the military. But now that we've seen Clinton's excellent leadership qualities, I'd pick him. The only reason he didn't get a majority is because Ross Perot attracted many liberals upset by NAFTA. Perot was against NAFTA, and pro-choice, both are qualities opposite conservatives. And if you look at the 1996 exit polls, there is a question http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html that asks vote if Perot not running. Clinton still wins by 7 points. Big Dawg now knows how popular he is, so if he could be president again, he'd probably go hard left.

[Kahuna]

43. Gore, without hesitation. I honestly believe that Gore would have

been a better president than Clinton. Gore unfortunately is a terrible campaigner though. So we didn't get a chance to see it for ourselves.

[98geoduck]

48. I'll second that!

[kodi]

50. gore, i do not trust clinton and i never did.

.

[fujiyama]

52. Al Gore is a great person

and would have made a better president than Clinton. I found him to have more integrity and honesty.

But I'd probably end up holding my nose and vote for Clinton, because I knew he had won twice. I could have seen him winning all the Gore states and one other state quite easilly (say FL or AR).

Looking back, I think most of us would have done anything to have kept these nutcases from gaining control. Clinton wasn't perfect, but for whatever faults he had, it feels like a difference of night and day.