"Plea of a Democratic Pariah..."

[Fischkoepfin 1]

In the light of Al Gore's resurfacing last week and subsequent media debates, this article is interesting because it puts things into perspective. I'm not even a big fan of Gore, but think this article points to several of the big problems of the Democrats face internally. Enjoy.

May 21, 2006

The Nation

Plea of the Democratic Pariah: Forgive My Defeat

By MARK LEIBOVICH

WASHINGTON

IN so much as the term "rehabilitation" applies to Al Gore, he is enjoying a nice little run of late.

Mr. Gore — the former vice president, would-be president, almost-president and, in some circles, should-be president — did a hilarious turn on "Saturday Night Live" last weekend. He has received continued plaudits in liberal journals and blogs for his staunch opposition to the Iraq war and good reviews for his documentary about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." He attended an opening for the film here last Wednesday amid raves about how at ease this latest version of the "new Al Gore" appears, in addition to the requisite "Gore in '08" buzzing among the Washington smartypants set.

If Mr. Gore runs for president again — and he says he won't, though not quite definitively — he would come rested, battle-tested and, given how Democrats have treated their losing nominees, deeply stigmatized.

As a general rule, it can be an unpleasant career move for a Democrat to run for president, streak to primary victories, win his party's nomination and, ultimately, fall short. For his troubles, he will automatically be consigned by large sectors of his party to a distinctive Democratic pariah status — his campaign ridiculed, second-guessed and I-told-you-so'd endlessly by insiders and operatives who bemoan how "winnable" his election was and "unlikable" his personality is.

They will reflexively lump the runner-up into the party pantheon of losers and hope he stays away. "We tend to treat our losing nominees like Superfund sites," said Bob Beckel, a longtime Democratic strategist who ran Walter F. Mondale's presidential campaign in 1984, a landslide loss to Ronald Reagan.

This contrasts with Republicans, who have admittedly had fewer runners-up in recent decades but who nonetheless accord them a more respectful, eminent status. Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton in 1996, but has retained an elder statesman's role within the party. Barry Goldwater lost 44 states to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 yet remains a conservative icon. Richard M. Nixon lost narrowly in 1960 and went on to be elected president in 1968.

"Maybe the Republicans know something that we don't," Senator John Kerry said, referring to Mr. Nixon's comeback win during an appearance earlier this year on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos."

Proponents of a Gore comeback are quick to stake their own claim, oddly enough, to the precedent of Mr. Nixon. They catalog the parallels between the two men's electoral histories. As with Mr. Nixon 40 years earlier, Mr. Gore was a sitting vice president who lost in one of the closest races ever. He left the national stage and made an ill-fated reappearance (Mr. Nixon to lose the California governor's race in 1962, Mr. Gore to endorse Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, which tanked). Mr. Nixon eventually triumphed, eight years after his bitter defeat, at the expense of an incumbent party hampered by an unpopular war.

Could the parallels to Mr. Nixon extend that far? If he were to run in 2008, Mr. Gore would still have a way to go, party officials say.

There remains a broad sector of Democrats who will reflexively roll their eyes at the notion of Mr. Gore in general, let alone the idea of a political comeback. "I've always been puzzled by all the hostility to Gore, especially after he was essentially robbed of the election," said Elaine Kamarck, a longtime aide to Mr. Gore who is now a lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Gore's experience should be a plus, not a stigma, she says.

But the Democratic Party represents a rare American enterprise in which experience, intense vetting and a proven record of success will, to many minds, disqualify a candidate from trying again.

That could be changing, Mr. Gore's stalwarts insist, or hope. Ms. Kamarck says that history has cast Mr. Gore in an improved light given his early opposition to the Iraq war and longtime warnings against global warming, an issue gaining urgency.

Could it be changing for Mr. Kerry, too? Unlike Mr. Gore, Mr. Kerry had the benefit — or curse — of a high-profile Washington job to return to. Earlier this year, GQ published an unflattering profile of Mr. Kerry that relied heavily on anonymous quotes from former staffers and Beltway Democrats portraying him as a scorned and pitiable figure. The article was e-mailed with a measure of unrestrained glee around Democratic offices on Capitol Hill.

"The bitterness towards Kerry is much greater from the chattering classes in Washington," said Michael D. McCurry, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry during his 2004 presidential campaign. Mr. McCurry posits the example of his father, a Democratic activist in South Carolina, who still admires Mr. Kerry and resents the ridicule that's been heaped on him by onetime loyalists. Mr. Kerry's current staff is quick to share news of the large turnouts and ebullient receptions the senator is getting as he travels the country, exploring another run in 2008.

Coming so close might give Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry a measure of electoral viability that was not available to landslide victims like Mr. Mondale, George S. McGovern and Michael S. Dukakis. But it also breeds frustration, much of it aimed at the near winner.

"To come close and lose tends to magnify everything the candidate did wrong," said Leon E. Panetta, a former White House chief of staff under President Clinton. Democrats are predisposed to blame their own, he said, no matter how much they once loved them.

Why doesn't the G.O.P. do this?

"Because they win," Mr. Panetta said, laughing.

Republicans are more disposed to a corporate or military model in which retired executives or generals are often kept around, brought back as advisers or re-deployed in times of crisis. "Democrats tend to tire faster of people than Republicans do," said Frank Luntz, a Republican communications consultant who has conducted focus groups on presidential candidates of both parties. "A conservative nature is a more patient nature."

Mr. Luntz says the influence of television in modern campaigns only heightens the impatience of Democrats. He suggests that Adlai Stevenson — the last losing Democrat to be renominated, in 1956 — would likely not be afforded a second chance today. "We demand instant gratification now, in our lives and our politics," he said.

"I think all of us understand the world we live in politically," said Mr. Dukakis, who lost to President George H.W. Bush in 1988. He says the experience of being a party nominee has afforded him chances that otherwise wouldn't have existed, such as speaking to college students across the country.

"I ran a lousy general election campaign," he said. "A lot of people were upset. I was upset. But there's a role you can play. You can't expect your party to wrap you up in love and affection."

Mr. Mondale says a losing candidate should condition his expectations accordingly. "If you come back and expect to be, quote, the titular head of the party, you're bound to have a bad day," said Mr. Mondale, who went on to be ambassador to Japan during the Clinton administration.

Mr. Mondale, who lives in Minneapolis, says he sees Mr. McGovern when he comes through town, and saw Mr. Dukakis during the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston.

"We spend time together sharing the joy of our shared experiences," said Mr. Mondale, who may or may not have meant this sarcastically.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How can an article on Gore seeking the Democratic nomination in 08 ignore the obvious? The nomination belongs to Hillary. That is the real reason Gore won't get it.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

How can an article on Gore seeking the Democratic nomination in 08 ignore the obvious? The nomination belongs to Hillary. That is the real reason Gore won't get it.

Hillary is currently making lots of people who would have voted for her in theory very unhappy; even a majority New Yorkers don't think she's "electable," not only because she's a woman (bad point, imho) but because she's the epitome of an opportunist who doesn't get it. And she hasn't lost an election yet, so she doesn't qualify for mention in the article.

[Fandango 1,439]

Hill's no democrat

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Hill's no democrat

she's a republocrat/demorican...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hill's no democrat

she's a republocrat/demorican...

Just like her husband. A democratic president who pushed through NAFTA and welfare reform and laid off thousands of federal workers with his announcement of the "end of the era of big government". A pragmatic, not an ideologue.

In other words, after 8 years of an ideological presidency, exactly what we need.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Hill's no democrat

she's a republocrat/demorican...

i think she's a communist - refer to the attached pic

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Hill's no democrat

she's a republocrat/demorican...

Just like her husband. A democratic president who pushed through NAFTA and welfare reform and laid off thousands of federal workers with his announcement of the "end of the era of big government". A pragmatic, not an ideologue.

In other words, after 8 years of an ideological presidency, exactly what we need.

I disagree that she is the answer because she is not a pragmatist but an opportunist (and compared to her recent attempts at crowd-pleasing her husband is a poor dupe).

Gore, despite his shortcomings, would bee a better choice in that respect. He's certainly not some left-wing ideologue and his clear-cut stance on the environment, for example, strikes me as highly pragmatist...

Hill's no democrat

she's a republocrat/demorican...

i think she's a communist - refer to the attached pic

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Gore, despite his shortcomings, would bee a better choice in that respect. He's certainly not some left-wing ideologue and his clear-cut stance on the environment, for example, strikes me as highly pragmatist...

I disagree. Gore is nutty on the environment.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Gore, despite his shortcomings, would bee a better choice in that respect. He's certainly not some left-wing ideologue and his clear-cut stance on the environment, for example, strikes me as highly pragmatist...

I disagree. Gore is nutty on the environment.

I can agree to disagree. I can even agree that compared to the Bushies he seems nutty. I just find his environmental nuttiness pragmatic given the neglect of the last 6 years. Besides that he's your middle of the road politician, though.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

even i'd choose gore over hillary...

Edited May 21, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Fandango 1,439]

much ado about nothing...2008 is Guiliani's year

Edited May 21, 2006 by LisaD

[Fischkoepfin 1]

much ado about nothing...2008 is Guiliani's year

And I thought McCain was next in line...

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

much ado about nothing...2008 is Guiliani's year

And I thought McCain was next in line...

just what we need. can i vote for mickey mouse?

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

just got this one in from a friend of mine....