Replies

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic Party of John Kerry and John Edwards is transforming itself in ways that ultimately will leave Bill Clinton and Al Gore on the outside looking in.

When it comes to shaping the Democrats' image and the eventual nominee's message and policy positions, the new stars won't look to Clinton and Gore. Overall, the former leaders' influence is diminishing, many political experts say.

To be sure, the former president and his vice president, the latter the unsuccessful 2000 presidential nominee, will get window-dressing roles at the Democratic National Convention in Boston in July. Both will be active to some extent in the fall campaign against President Bush.

But inevitably, the rise of new leaders diminishes the role of old ones. And Clinton and Gore may fade faster than usual, given that some embarrassment accompanies both men.

"In political terms, there might not be much upside in using them," said Stephen Hess, a Brookings Institution scholar. "Obviously, Bill Clinton was a controversial person, and that will trail him, so they have to be a little cautious about how he's used." Gore has become an object of ridicule for editorial cartoonists, Hess said.

Gore made a colossal mistake of timing by endorsing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in December. The wheels came off the Dean bandwagon soon after Gore jumped onto it. And many Democrats still blame Gore for running an inept campaign that let slip the party's grip on the White House in 2000.

Clinton allowed a personal sex scandal to define his presidency. And the former president provokes suspicions that he might be a bit more interested in wife Hillary's political future than in a Democratic success this year that might foreclose the opportunity for her to run for the White House in 2008.

Moreover, Clinton is constrained by tradition. Former presidents tend to be supportive of their successors, even successors of a different party, particularly in times of crisis. Just as former President George H.W. Bush muted his criticism of Clinton, the man who beat him in 1992, Clinton -- at least so far -- has been anything but a full-throated critic of George W. Bush.

"There's kind of an unwritten rule about that," said Ray Strother, a veteran Democratic political strategist.

Clinton and Gore can still raise money for Democrats, and Clinton remains strong in the affections of black voters. But the party is going through "an evolutionary process," Strother said, moving away from the centrism of Clinton and Gore.

"What a new Democrat was eight or 10 years ago is not what a new Democrat is today," he said. "Today it's Kerry and Edwards. The Democratic Party always has some wriggle room. They are wriggling a bit more to the left right now."

Hess agreed. "Clinton's major legacy was how he moved his party toward the center," he said. "Since the leading candidates are now moving the Democratic Party someplace else, there clearly has to be some ambivalence about Clinton."

What does Gore mean to the party?

"The answer is, not very much," Hess said. "It's hard to think about Gore as a major force in Democratic politics. Gore may think he has a future, but he hasn't offered the party the support he might have. He could have been right out there in front on the issues of the day. Maybe he has a political tin ear."

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank associated with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council that Clinton once led, is also dismissive of Gore.

"He made a decision to try to play a role, but his endorsement of Dean blew up in his face," Marshall said. "So he's not going to be a power broker in any real sense. Clinton was wise and stayed out of it, but Gore acted rashly."

Larry Sabato, a professor of political science at the University of Virginia, said Clinton and Gore will get "five minutes in the spotlight" at the Democratic convention and then vanish. "They do not have a horse in this race, except generically."

The Democratic nominee may send Clinton into his home state of Arkansas "for the last week or two of the campaign," Sabato said. "But what will he do with Gore? Send Gore to Tennessee (his home state) so he can lose that state again?"

Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, has been conducting focus groups with Democratic voters for MSNBC, and said he finds clear signs of the demise of Clinton and Gore.

"You don't hear anyone saying "I'm a Clinton Democrat, the way Republicans fight for the mantle of being known as `Reagan Republicans,"' Luntz said. "And Gore is a footnote. Gore will be forgotten. He left no footprints on the American psyche."

Feb. 10, 2004

The Lord knows I really hope and believe this report is true!

I doubt Hillary and the mainstream media will allow this to happen. At least, not to their beloved bill clinton.

But inevitably, the rise of new leaders diminishes the role of old ones. And Clinton and Gore may fade faster than usual, given that some embarrassment accompanies both men.

Who ARE they gonna use as a role model, then? Stalin?

Well, they'll still be welcome to dance with each other at Disney World. That oughta count for sumpthin! Urp!

Moreover, Clinton is constrained by tradition. Former presidents tend to be supportive of their successors, even successors of a different party, particularly in times of crisis. Just as former President George H.W. Bush muted his criticism of Clinton, the man who beat him in 1992, Clinton -- at least so far -- has been anything but a full-throated critic of George W. Bush. "There's kind of an unwritten rule about that," said Ray Strother, a veteran Democratic political strategist.

I'll write a reply to this when I stop DYING laughing.

Gore has become an object of ridicule for editorial cartoonists

Ya think? the man almost made dean seem sane for crying out loud,and clintoon? well personally i hope the news does not get back to the kneepadders that their hero and god has a bit much baggage.this human embarrassment has been a godsend for the republicans.

Gore has become an object of ridicule for editorial cartoonists, Hess said.

Just "editorial cartoonists," Mr. Hess? Now you're just being modest, surely. :)