Why Kerry or Gore could be our best hope in 2008 (Your thoughts?)

[Ian_rd]

Have you ever seen one of those polls where an incumbent is polled against an unnamed challenger because the challenger has not yet been selected? I seem to remember many of these polls that pitted an incumbent Republican against an unnamed Democrat. The unnamed Democrat pretty much always fares better than the known Democrat. This, I believe, is because while Democrats win on the issues, Republicans are much better at smearing their opponents.

As soon as the Democratic challenger is known in any given race, the vast apparatus of the Republican media machine goes into full tilt and doesn't stop until millions of Americans can hardly keep their food down when the Democrat's name is uttered. And realistically, we can expect the Republicans to maintain this advantage.

This might actually give Kerry and Gore an advantage over the future unnamed Democratic presidential candidate. Gore and Kerry have already been smeared by The Machine with the worst the Republicans could come up with (Remember how AM Radio trotted out the claim that one of Kerry's Purple Hearts was from Kerry shooting himself because he was a coward who wanted to go home? That was especially choice). If Gore or Kerry run again, the old Republican smears are just that: old. And for that matter largely discredited, even among the Right. Any new smears will probably not be as effective, and will smack of political machinations even more than the originals.

And not to mention, the last time Gore ran for president, he got a majority of the votes (including in Florida, but who's counting?). And Kerry came pretty damn close to a majority.

Hillary, I'm afraid, is an exception. Like Kerry and Gore, she has been smeared previously by The Machine. But she has been really really smeared. For the past 14 years, she has received the constant brunt of the Republican smear campaign - perhaps even more than her husband. Perhaps as much as 35% of the American population are incapable of considering her through policy and opinion because she has been morphed into the earthly incarnation of Satan himself (Not that I care - I think she sucks). And besides, she's not exactly very popular among Democrats either for her DLC-inspired governing strategy. She can't win.

The future unnamed Democratic candidate stands to be the victim of the inevitable smear campaign that have kept Republicans winning elections for the past 10 years straight. Kerry and Gore have been there, they'll know better how to handle it. This time they won't allow wild accusations to go unchallenged for months (hopefully), and they'll also know (hopefully) that stating a clear liberal ideology without center-calculations actually gets you votes. They can run as fighters who refused to let The Machine destroy them with lies. I say we draft 'em.

[Horse with no Name]

1. I agree

The smear machine already did their best and they STILL won.
I prefer Gore but have no problem with Kerry.

[warrens]

2. Same with me

I personally prefer Kerry, but Gore would be a better candidate, IMO. He has a lot more goodwill stored up than Kerry does. And he has a really good "what would the last 8 years be like" story to tell the American people.

[jwirr]

4. I personally would like to see Kerry as the head of either the FBI

or Justice. I would like to see him continue his fight against international crime.

[blm]

9. Except you would have to be dead certain the Oval Office ALLOWS him to.

I trust Kerry WOULD open the books that need opening and I could see him charging a Jonathan Winer or Henry Waxman with the duties - two SERIOUS anti-corruption mindsets.

[jwirr]

16. Just as long as he gets his chance to do something about it.

[blm]

34. If the DNC is serious about voter integrity, he will.

.

[jwirr]

3. Also, name recognition is very important. Many Democrats are

working their asses off to make a living which means they are often to busy to keep up on the latest as we here on DU do. When I was talking to my daughter about who should run she looked at me and said who are these people you are talking about? She is a respiratory therapist and works 8 on 4 off plus she baby sits for her daughter's children when free so the daughter can work in a nursing home. We need to use very familiar names and fight like hell to win.

[bowens43]

5. Neither one of them could beat the idiot.

As far as I'm concerned that's a good indication that they couldn't beat a real candidate.

Of course I will support the candidate no matter who it is but I'm sure we can do better then a couple of retreads.

[Seedersandleechers]

6. I disagree...It's a well known fact that Gore did win.

And, the vote issue in Ohio looks suspect.

[nevergiveup]

7. Although both won they also did not take office

and are perceived as "losers" by the general public. Either would be a disaster.......just my opinion.

[blm]

14. We have a different DNC that is now strengthening the party infrastructure

in states where it had been in a state of collapse since 1997.

Big difference. Especially since it was the party infrastructure that failed both Gore and Kerry. They never worked to counter the everyday for four years effort the RNC put into suppressing Dem votes, purging voter rolls and gaining control of the input and output of the voting machines.

Had those efforts been countered by the DNC throughout the four years between elections we would have had a Pres. Gore in 2001 or a Pres. Kerry in 2005.

[savemefromdumbya]

8. Could have Gore-Kerry 08

both together Prez and VP

[ronnykmarshall]

20. I can't see Kerry taking the VP slot.

And I LOVES me some JK, but I don't think he would want to be VP.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. I hope not - either would be fine, but not both together.

I think it would probably be a good idea to have at least one person who isn't one of Gore, Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards on the Democratic ticket. Gore/X or Kerry/X (or X/Gore or X/Kerry) but not both together.

There's also the issue that as a committed opponent of conscription, I can't in good consciense support a Gore candidacy. Volunteer presidents only.

I'm also not convinced of Gore's ability to appeal outside his own core vote - something which, of course, support on DU tells one nothing about. He won the popular vote in 2000, but I worry his high-profile opposition to global warming since then may cost him a lot of the scientifically-illiterate vote, which in America is a powerful voting block, alas.

[savemefromdumbya]

25. then it is Clinton/Obama 08?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. I suspect not.

Clinton has the problem that, while she can probably get out the Democratic core vote and possibly also appeal to swing voters, she'll bring Republicans out in *droves*, and turnout is what wins elections.

Obama I know relatively little about, either for or against.

[Cleita]

10. Maybe Gore, not Kerry. I would like to see Gore and John Edwards.

eom

[JABBS]

11. John Edwards-Max Cleland ...

is the ticket I'd like to see.

Edwards has been raising money, has good name recognition, has a message, and is polling well in Iowa.

And let's see if the GOP gets away with questioning Cleland's patriotism again, as it did in 2002.

[politicasista]

21. I heard that....

Max is backing Kerry if he runs in 08. n/t

[skipos]

12. I'd prefer to have a non-senator

Senators records are much easier to smear. I'd also like to have someone from a flippable red state. Every EV counts. If Kerry was from Ohio, or if Gore had Graham (Fl) as a VP, they'd be sitting in the Whitehouse. I'd like to have a candidate who can sell a progressive agenda to self-proclaimed progressives, as well as people who don't think they are progressives. Most voters barely pay attention, and you need to win those people over. I think you we can win those people over without sacrificing Democratic values too.

I always thought Clark would have been able to do this in 2004, but this is all IMO.

[Clarkie1]

27. My thoughts as well. nt

[Radical Activist]

13. That's a decent point.

We do need a candidate who knows how to deal with the attacks that will come from the Republicans. In that sense, having any candidate with national experience might be better prepared to win. That might include Edwards too since he was on a national ticket.
This is one reason why I think its a mistake to run someone for President who has never held elected office. They won't be prepared for the challenges of a national campaign, at all. Sorry Clarkies, but elective political experience matters too.

That isn't enough to get me to support Kerry again though. I don't think he was a very good candidate.

[Beelzebud]

15. If we want to lose again, we'll run John Kerry again.

The swiftboat liars destroyed his reputation with many average americans.

Running Kerry again would be political suicide.

[blm]

33. that's not true - he got 10million more votes than Gore did, and that does

not include the 5million BushInc had to steal.

BTW - there's a book coming out soon about the swifts. And EVERY lie they told has full documentation, every written order, and even accompanying film that many vets helped to gather that is irrefutable to shut the swifts down completely.

[LTR]

17. Gore yes, Kerry no.

I just think Kerry is too drab and stiff. He hasn't done a whole lot to improve himself in the last few years. Looked like a wimp against the Swiftnuts, and he's damaged goods. Also caved in on Iraq and just seems to go with the flow. No thanks.

Gore, on the other hand, became almost a totally different person. He developed a sense of humor, brought a higher sense of passion to his speeches, and put out a documentary that got rave reviews (which, prior to its release, I would never have believed!). Simply put, Gore won in 2000 (votewise), and I think he would be an even better candidate in 2008. Hell, it worked for Nixon.

[TayTay]

36. I prefer Kerry

I like the fact that he did not disappear after his loss, but is still in there fighting. I have always found Gore to be too wooden and I don't think he is progressive enough. He didn't really do anything in the Clinton Administration to advance his agenda on the environment.

I prefer Kerry, who is taking strong action now and has not faded into the background.

[Greyhound]

18. This is an interesting point, I wonder if it can be somehow tested

before we are committed to one of these guys as our candidate? Personally I heavily favor Clark for POTUS and would like to see Feingold, Kucinich, or some other long-time politician with a strong record of supporting the people over profits as VPOTUS.

[Mass]

19. I totally agree.

My preference is Kerry, but Gore could be great as well, and I agree with the reasons you give to choose any of these two.

[mnhtnbb]

23. Gore would make best Pres. Edwards has best chance.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

35. He has no natl security experience. He was also a PersonaI Injury Attorney

n/t

[dr.rock]

24. Gore maybe but -

as much as I love Al and voted for him
we might need a new face like Feingold

I don't believe Al wants to run tho.

[Clarkie1]

26. I could be enthusiastic about Gore, but not Kerry. nt

Edit: The problem with Gore is that, like all senators, he has a voting record to twist and smear.

[bklyncowgirl]

29. You got a point. No dirt there and everything they used before is old.

I have not problem with either of these Gentlemen. I prefer Gore simply because he had the good judgement to be opposed to this war from the git go.

Also, neither Gore nor Kerry has any illusions as to what and who they're up against.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

30. Clark is our best bet..... he's more experienced now

n/t

[CarlVK]

31. Dean.

He's been right on about everything so far....even when his naysayers were trying to jeer him down and replay the "scream" 978,00 times. He was right on the economy. He was right on Iraq. He was right on the GOP cynicism toward our rights and freedoms. JHe was right about how far the neofascists would go to pursue their agenda of forever war at the expense of all of us.

He is reforming the Democratic Party into one of a return to bedrock principles and most of all, fight.

Unleashing him would be like a juggernaut headed directly at the black heart of neoconservatism.

[flaminbats]

32. who will be the Republican nominee?

will it be someone like Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, or John McCain..or a lesser known like Romney, Huckabee, or Brownback?

IMO the easy Republicans to beat include Newt, Condi, and Dick Cheney. But what about Democrats? Republicans easily beat a nationally known Democrat like Walter Mondale..and the same thing to the lesser known Michael Dukakis. They had a tougher time with better known Democrats like Gore and Humphrey. For Democrats..lesser known Republicans like Goldwater and Ford were easier to take down. Better known Republicans like Nixon and Bush were tough to bring down.

I agree that both Kerry and Gore have advantages because of their name recognition and strong showings with popular vote. but elections between McCain and Kerry or Jeb and Gore would both be close. What we really need is Carville to run the campaign!