Posted on 02/02/2002 5:03:02 PM PST by Pokey78
NASHVILLE, Feb. 2 — Al Gore, who likes to remind audiences that he "used to be the next president of the United States," re-emerged today in his home state to take what is a vital step if he decides to try for a rematch: convincing Tennesseans that he is still a viable candidate.
Democrats around the country are keeping a watchful eye on Mr. Gore — and are taking note of his decision to speak tonight at a dinner of the Tennessee Democratic Party. That is because if Mr. Gore decides to run in 2004, his candidacy could not be dismissed. After all, he won the popular vote in 2000, and he is far better known than the other Democrats with designs on the White House.
Yet the hurdles for Mr. Gore extend far beyond making amends in Tennessee, which he lost to George W. Bush by a humiliating four percentage points. Although he almost became president and although his stalwart supporters in 2000 credit him with delivering a gracious concession, many are eager for a fresh candidate. Close race or not, many Democrats argue that Mr. Gore should have swamped Mr. Bush.
In the Senate alone, several Democrats who backed Mr. Gore in 2000 are already preparing their own campaigns for the party's nomination. Even senators who are not running are openly critical, even dismissive, of their last standard-bearer.
Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, for one, laughed uproariously when asked about supporting Mr. Gore again.
"Al Gore lost North Dakota by 28 points!" Mr. Dorgan said. "The entire ticket went down with him in North Dakota. When you lose by 28 points, that's a megalandslide."
Asked about Mr. Gore's prospects, Mr. Dorgan said, "I don't hear anybody say much of anything about Al Gore."
Senator John B. Breaux of Louisiana said about Mr. Gore: "Things change. In politics, it's here today, gone tomorrow. It's a whole new scenario right now. You have to be likable before they can vote for you."
Even Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who is so close to Mr. Gore that the former vice president held a fund- raising event for him in the fall, is not ready to commit to him again.
"We have to see what the lay of the land is," Mr. Harkin said. "It would be harder for him because he's not the sitting vice president."
Mr. Harkin said that if Mr. Gore ran, he would have to contend with his running mate, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who announced this week that he, like Mr. Gore, had established a political action committee to help candidates this year. Mr. Harkin said he was skeptical of Mr. Lieberman's promise not to run if Mr. Gore does.
"Joe has said if Gore runs, he won't run," Mr. Harkin said. Asked whether he took Mr. Lieberman at his word, Mr. Harkin replied:
"Don't know. It's easy to say that now. But when the fever hits you, you don't know."
Mr. Gore has told friends that he has truly not decided about 2004. But his appearance to mend fences in his home state is the most telling sign that Mr. Gore wants, at least, to keep his options open.
The primaries may be two years away, but the presidential contest is under way, with possible contenders traveling to important states and assembling staffs. The most aggressive have been Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Senator Lieberman and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri.
The Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, has not taken steps toward running. But many leading Democrats are encouraging him.
In an interview, Mr. Daschle said that Mr. Gore "would be the front- runner" if he made the race and "deserves to be in the mix." But Mr. Daschle added that there would be many other formidable candidates.
Mr. Gore still has steadfast supporters who argue that he is far more popular among voters outside Washington than inside the Beltway. They also contend — like many of Mr. Gore's foes — that if Mr. Gore mounts a serious race he could become the front-runner because he is the best-known prospect with the most contacts.
"In the base of the party, there's still a great deal of support for Al Gore, and in Washington there isn't," said Mitchell Berger, a top fund- raiser for Mr. Gore in 2000 who said he would back the Tennessean again. "When I worked for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, nobody in Washington wanted them. Currently, a similar thing is going on with Al Gore."
Steve Hildebrand, a strategist in South Dakota who ran Mr. Gore's campaign in Iowa in 2000, said: "We would be foolish to not want someone as qualified as Al Gore to serve our country. He is still the most qualified individual out there at a time when the economy is in question and international affairs are of great concern. He is still deeply beloved by activist Democrats and regular Democrats."
In California, the state's Democratic chairman, Art Torres, said of Mr. Gore: "Voters still view him as a very serious contender and at the top of the list. He won here by 1.3 million votes over George Bush. He has a strong chance right now, if that's what he wants to do."
Many Democratic strategists said the move by the Democratic Party last month to advance the primary schedule by a month in 2004 would benefit the best-known candidate. Right now, Mr. Gore is far better known than the other prospects. That could be particularly helpful for Mr. Gore in a large field, where he would be assured of a minimum of support and could possibly defeat his opponents, who might split the rest of the vote.
The strategists also argued that if Mr. Gore appeared to be gaining steam, many naysayers would happily climb back on board for his candidacy.
Still, despite all his advantages, even Mr. Gore's advisers agree that he would have a more arduous climb to the nomination than when he was vice president and had the resources of the White House and President Clinton — albeit the baggage of Mr. Clinton as well — at his disposal.
Mr. Gore has failed to engender deep support from many past backers. Several top strategists from 2000, including Michael Whouley, Robert Shrum and Ronald A. Klain, have been talking to other Democrats who plan to run in 2004. At a recent strategy session that fund- raisers for Mr. Gore held at Mr. K's, an expensive Chinese restaurant in downtown Washington, six people showed up.
Even among Democrats who are willing to support Mr. Gore again, there seems to be rather tepid interest in a Gore candidacy. Several people said they would back him if he ran. But they were not willing to encourage Mr. Gore to run.
Orin Kramer, an investment manager in New Jersey who was a top fund-raiser for Mr. Gore in 2000, has been eyeing other candidates.
"Until people declare that they actually want to run for president," Mr. Kramer said, "people like myself have the liberty of waiting. It's easy for people to interpret that they're all falling off the wagon. But the process in 2000 was enormously expensive and tremendously emotionally draining. So there's a natural inclination for people to sit back and not be engaged."
But Mr. Kramer was not about to publicly distance himself from Mr. Gore. He said he was raising money for Mr. Gore's political action committee. He also said he would have traveled here for the event, "if I did not have a longstanding ticket to take my son to the Nets-Raptors game."
"There is," he added, "a great deal more residual support for the vice president among Democrats in general than some of the elites."
Several of Mr. Gore's backers said the former vice president had been tarnished by his connection with Mr. Clinton. They contended that he might be more of his own candidate if he ran again.
"The country was against him because of Bill Clinton," said Representative Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat who was one of Mr. Gore's most ardent backers. "People never gave Gore a fair chance to be considered."
Saying he could still envision a President Gore, Mr. Dicks invoked Richard M. Nixon's comeback. "You think about Nixon, who lost in '60 and then came back and had, I wouldn't say a great presidency," Mr. Dicks said. "But he got elected twice."
Although Mr. Gore's intentions are unclear, one certainty is that he is not devoting himself full time to politics. He is a vice chairman for Metropolitan West Financial Inc., a financial services company in Los Angeles. He teaches at several universities, and he is writing a book about family with his wife, Tipper.
His advisers said the first crucial step if he were to run again would be to improve — and solidify — his political position in Tennessee, as he was doing here today.
Mr. Gore was the first presidential contender to lose his home state since George McGovern lost in South Dakota in 1972 and was trounced in a national landslide by Mr. Nixon.
"Obviously," Mr. Harkin said, "if he had carried his own state, he'd be president today. You can't just lose your home state, for gosh sakes."
I thank God every day that this man is not in the White House.
The sad thing is that he COULD have won it, though I was the only one I know that thought that prior to November 2. I'm so glad it didn't happen.
The upside is that it looks as though the economy is righting itself without much of a need for the econ gurus.
So far, the Dems are working on Enron, which is, in my opinion, a nonstarter. The only way that would work is if there is a serious smoking gun, though I doubt it. Other than that, we've 'got 'em on th' run', to coin a phrase. Now it's time to 'smoke 'em out'.
Algore reminds me of the bad guys in those "B" horror flicks... just when you think they're dead, they keep coming after you...
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.