Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Florie
My personal opinion is that Mr. Moneybags for the Democratic Party aka Clinton isn't going to give the okay to a Gore run. Clinton and Gore now hold a grudge against one another and unless Gore is willing to publicly grovel to his old boss he won't get any help from the national party. Clinton is going to have the final say and the successor to his crown is going to have to acknowledge Clinton as the real power behind the scenes.

I don't believe Gore has enough grassroots support from lowlevel Dems to make it on his own.

That said: My hope is that Gore does run because it is a distraction to other hopefuls such as the "charismatic and shallow" (shades of Clinton) Edwards and the dour Kerry who might not get enough traction in their bid for the nomination with Gore's presence in the race.

If Gore runs the country will not see a replay of 2000. Bush is going to be far more formidable and daunting as a candidate than the man Gore faced and lost to the first time. Whereas, Gore has used up much political capital and reputation in his last failed bid.

Bush would win hands down against him. T

20 posted on 01/07/2002 4:22:31 AM PST by AquariusStar22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: AquariusStar22
You are correct. The Democrats are unlikely to run someone who has already lost to Bush again. Even if Bush commits some catastrophic error and ruins the country somehow, there is NO advantage to the Dems to put Gore up against him. The obligation to run the VP as if he were a reasonable person to be president (out of party loyalty) is no longer there. There is no way a non-flaky candidate would have lost to Bush--Bush was marginalised by the press as a moron and Gore was championed the media as the obvious winner.

Gore, had he been a half-normal candidate, should have won two to one over Bush. Though Gore seems to have had more popular votes, there is NO WAY he would have covered a reasonable point spread. He had EVERY advantage, his sole weak spot was himself. A large number of people voted for Ralph Nader INSTEAD of Gore. What kind of person loses significant numbers votes to NADER?

The democrats have other candidates that, come next year, are going to be much more viable than Gore, even if they can't win either. I worry that Hillary may be one of them.

28 posted on 01/07/2002 5:14:38 AM PST by Great Wombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: AquariusStar22
Yours and the others' comments are Comforting Words. My thought was that the only way Gore COULD win was by chicanery and lies. He has expertise in that field only. GO BUSH -
36 posted on 01/07/2002 7:08:28 AM PST by Florie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson