Posted on 12/10/2003 7:02:58 PM PST by shortstop
Al Gore has done it again.
There is a reason he isn't president and it's not just the chads in Florida. The man has the worst political instincts of anyone to have gotten as far as he did in this business.
Once again, he has proven why he is a loser and not a leader.
Of course, the endorsement by the former vice president helps Howard Dean, at least in the short run. It cements his role as the front runner in the race, sending a powerful message about the race to insiders and outsiders. Try making fundraising calls today if you are Joe Lieberman or John Kerry or Dick Gephardt. Try explaining to would-be donors how it is that the race is still wide open. Say thank you to Al Gore for that.
But if Dr. Dean wins the nomination, Gore can hardly claim to have been the kingmaker. The rules were written for a candidate like Howard Dean. They were intended to ensure that an insurgent candidate would have a chance against a better financed, better organized front-runner. When the better financed, better organized candidate IS the insurgent, the rules provide him with an overwhelming advantage. According to current polls, Dean is already ahead of John Kerry in New Hampshire, and is running neck and neck with Dick Gephardt in Iowa. But the Iowa numbers may be misleading. Polling in caucus states is notoriously difficult to begin with. Dean's Internet base should help him immeasurably, and the fact that Dean is free to spend as much as he wants in Iowa, while Gephardt is limited by the expense limits that come with federal matching funds, gives Dean advantages not reflected in the current numbers.
To be sure, the fat lady has yet to sing. There is always a chance that Gore's endorsement could backfire. Iowans do not like to be told how to vote. There is a nasty streak among Democratic primary and caucus voters: Candidates can start losing when they become"inevitable" and "unbeatable"- just ask Fritz Mondale who almost lost the nomination to the unknown Gary Hart.
Still, the smart money for the nomination has been on Dean for some time, which gives the other candidates even more reason to be angry at the former vice president, both personally and institutionally.
Was Joe Lieberman not loyal enough? Remember the Al Gore who used to complain about HIS running mate Bill Clinton not being loyal to HIM? Al Gore apparently did not even have the decency to call Lieberman before endorsing his opponent.
What about Dick Gephardt, who carried the Clinton-Gore agenda for eight years in the House, and then put aside his own personal ambitions in 2000 to endorse Al Gore over his friend, Bill Bradley? And what about all of Gore's former aides, who are now working for Wesley Clark?
What harm would it have done for Gore to wait, and give voters the first chance to decide? Let his former running mate, his former allies, his former aides take their best shot, and if they fail, so be it. He had that chance. Why should they? Indeed, the danger for Gore is that if Dean should be the nominee and lose, as some on the hawkish side of the Democratic Party fear (including some old friends from the Democratic Leadership Council, which Gore helped to form-and watch Hillary Clinton while you are at it), Gore can kiss his role in the party goodbye. But that's the least of it.
Even looking only at this year, the former vice president's timing is way off. The time for leadership comes later, when at least some voters have had the opportunity to speak, when a winner has emerged and when the time has come for the losers to pull out, the party to pull together and the nominating season to be over.
The problem with the Democratic rules, and I know because I both wrote many of them and suffered under them, is that it can take too long even for a winner to amass the number of delegates necessary to cement the nomination. Because the Democrats have eliminated winner-take-all primaries, because minor candidates can stay in the race and continue to collect delegates, there becomes a point in the process when you need party leaders to declare the process ended, even if no one has literally won a majority yet. Al Gore could have played that role- now someone else will have to. A man who has stepped on those who have stood by him is in no position to lead.
Don't trouble yourself - Helen's still firmly in the grasp of the Dark Side.
I think you hit the nail on the head and it's scaring the Clintons to no end now that it's obvious that their puppet Clark isn't going anywhere.
You're right about Hillary too. She has tasted the power of the Presidency and she isn't about to play second fiddle to anybody.
I think she meant "there comes a point in the process". I think Gore felt like influencing the process.
It would've worked, except for the Clinton's cardinal sin -- taking the party's left wing for granted. They rose to power by convincing the left wing that they too were slealth lefties, merely 'playing' the centrist role in order to get elected. Even when they failed to deliver on gay rights, nationalized health care, etc. the left stayed with them. But that romance is all over now, and the Dean lefties hate the Clinton's about as vehemently as we Republicans do!
As another poster said recently, the Clinton's seem to be radical leftists to those on the Right, while to the Lefties they are capitalist sell-outs. But in reality they are just unprincipled grifters, out for themselves only.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.