Posted on 05/24/2006 4:18:08 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
As we look toward 2008, it is obvious Republicans would like to see their GOP nominee triumph. Democrats clearly want one of their own in the White House. But there are many who want to see ABH – "anybody but Hillary" – get elected.
The former first lady's unique brand of transparently phony moderation, heartfelt inner socialism, Nixonian disregard for the norms of civilized politics and governance, and her well-documented tin ear on ethical issues make her the most dangerous aspirant for president since George Wallace (and he never had a chance of winning).
The more John McCain runs and Rudy Giuliani tests the waters, the clearer it gets that neither of these good men can command the Republican nomination.
McCain is too independent and Rudy too liberal. Republicans will not forgive the Arizona senator for his anti-torture bill, his backing for campaign finance reform, his support of major reforms in corporate governance, his opposition to big tobacco, his antipathy toward making the tax cuts permanent and his backing for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Nor will they overlook Rudy's support for abortion choice, gun control, affirmative action or gay rights.
Condoleezza Rice, long the object of our affections, has not moved any closer to running despite our ceaseless prodding.
That leaves no Republican who can beat Hillary. George Allen, of confederate flag/tobacco spitting fame, is not likely to win over any female votes from the Democrats. Allen can get his usual complement of gun-toting white males but the female vote is the swing one in our politics.
Governor Mitt Romney is sinking fast in the Massachusetts polls. And Senator Bill Frist can't get out of his own way to even be an effective majority leader.
As for Governor George Pataki, fleeing your home state because you wouldn't get re-elected is hardly a springboard to national office.
Al Gore - poor benighted Al Gore - offers the best chance to stop Hillary, albeit in the Democratic primary.
History is repeating itself. In 1960 and 2000, a popular president (Eisenhower/Clinton) prompted his vice president (Nixon/Gore) to run for president. Each lost very, very narrowly. Each was sharply attacked within his own party for not using the popular incumbent more to campaign on his behalf.
After their defeats, neither seemed likely to get another presidential nomination. But then the party blew the next election by a considerably larger margin (Goldwater/Kerry) and the former VP's defeat didn't look so bad in retrospect. Each rode opposition to a current war into renewed popularity. And Nixon got elected.
Gore has several key advantages over Hillary. He has always strongly opposed the war, while she and the other possible Democratic candidates – Kerry, Edwards, Bayh and Biden – all voted for it. His historic warnings about the dangers of climate change seem to be coming true all around us. The major national issue – energy prices – is right up his alley. Gore has been advocating alternative fuels and major conservation for decades.
Gore would exploit a soft-core negative against Hillary that is sweeping the ranks of Democrats. Hungry for victory and suspicious of Hillary's ability to win, they whisper to one another: "I like her but isn't she too divisive to win?"
Gore has become personally wealthy with the appreciation of his Google stock and his equity position in his Current TV network. And he has access to much of the donor base that he used in 2000 for his run for the presidency. Hillary will take many of these supporters with her, but the truly left-wing Democrats who are turned off by her moderation and backing for the war will likely provide a sufficiently wealthy and enraged base for funding an Al Gore campaign.
John Kerry and John Edwards both lack the purism of Gore on the Iraq War. Both backed it and voted for the resolution. Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, the current fair-haired boy being touted in the Democratic Party, probably will not be able to get a word in edgewise as the two giants – Hillary and Al – square off with each other.
Any bad blood between Gore and Hillary? I once asked the vice president if there was any friction between Tipper and the first lady. "There is no friction between Tipper and Hillary" came the deadpan, earnest reply.
"Well," I rephrased my question "at the convention how do you think Hillary would react to Tipper introducing her?"
"There is no friction between Tipper and Hillary" came the automaton answer.
"So neither one would mind?" I ventured.
"There is no friction . . ." You get the point. There wouldn't be any friction between Al and Hillary were they to run against each other.
None at all.
ROTFLOL! I thought it was "only Condi can stop Hillary".
What a loser!
The Reptile? Clue me in. The only thing I can think of is Carville, and he's The Serpenthead.....
I can see that reptile brain of hers just clicking away... I really can.
Watch Now. Everything she does will be to "cut off" Gore.
Someone should tell him to stay out of Marcy Park.
To be brief, no Dem will win in 2008 because America simply won't elect an a$$hole to the office of the President.
Run Hillary Run!
(you're history Al)
I wonder if I can fit this sentence onto a t-shirt :^).
Others, feel free to add any we've missed!
I don't know about that. What do you call the winners of the 1976 and 1992 elections?
Maybe blood, guts and gore can stop her...
I have been writing for days now that Gore is a formidable candidate and, if he runs, may very well be the next President of the US. With Hillary as VP.
If he is the Democrat nominee, he is the next President against anyone but McCain and Giuliani.
You purists, pick your poison.
And don't forget unknown Bill Clinton! Bayh is the one Republicans should be fearing. A Democrat Governor from a true red state.
Yes this is true, however, it was Jerry Brown who gave us Whitewater. Governor Moonbeam was spot on in this distrust and loathing of Clinton. So much so that he had to leave the democRATS.
DEAL? OR NO DEAL?
GORE? OR NO GORE?
No more Gore!!!
Almost right ;-) Hillary will try for the nomination as she has too much money and too many yes-men around her telling her how wonderful she is to not to, but will get out early. She is simply not likeable enough to win - an essential quality for any politician and that will quickly become apparent. And as you say, Gore is damaged goods.
Is Dick Morris kidding? All the nutty stuff Gore had said and done since his defeat will provide a treasure trove of ammunition, both to primary and general election foes alike.
"A Gore/Clinton mudfest would be fun to watch."
It would be more like a "blood bath"; for real. This would be the worst split the Dems experienced since l968.
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.