February 26, 2007

New Democratic Faces for 2008

Hatched by Dafydd

For a while, I expected the Democratic nominee to be John Edwards: I do not believe that even the Democrats would nominate a feckless, 2/3-term senator with a bizarre name as their standard bearer; and I have believed for a long time -- since July of 2005 -- that Hillary Clinton will never be the Democratic nominee for president, because her negatives are simply too high -- not just among voters, but especially within "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

Now that those two are going at each other hammer and tooth, rending the flesh from their bodies while we're still in the preseason festivities, I doubt that either will have sufficient support even to win the Iowa caucuses, let alone South Carolina.

But I hardly thought that Edwards would run such a listless, logy campaign; and I never anticipated that a man running in his second presidential campaign would make so many unforced errors. Sadly, at this juncture, I must eliminate Edwards from the A-list of likely nominees; he joins Hillary and Barack at the kiddie table.

So who's it to be then? Well, let's list the de facto qualifications:

  1. Experience I. The Democrats suffer a perennial "stature-gap," which started in 1968, when they became the party of dirty, smelly hippies. The stature-gap is exacerbated during a war, when national security becomes a major issue. They must make up for this by nominating someone with experience not just in Congress but as a major figure in an administration (a governor, perhaps, or some equivalent position)... somebody with gravitas, or "bottom," as the Brits say.
  2. Experience II. A presidential campaign is an incredibly grueling and exhausting mega-marathon that is run under a microscope, where every thoughtless utterance will be repeated and analyzed endlessly. Democrats need a nominee who has been through either a national campaign before, or at least a nationalized state campaign (one that captures the attention of the whole country, such as the 2000 Senate campaign in New York).
  3. A history of military involvement. Such a history can serve as a "beard" for a reckless platform of appeasement, defeat, and surrender.
  4. A core of acceptability to the nutroots. The nominee must convince the party deciders -- the anti-war left, Hollywood, the radical reparations, abortion, same-sex marriage, and sharia factions, and George Soros -- that, no matter what the nominee says during the campaign (even if he or she feels the need of a "Sister Souljah" moment), he or she will actually pander to the dirty, smelly hippies.
  5. A veneer of acceptability to the mainstream. But he or she cannot actually be a dirty, smelly hippie.
  6. A master of Newspeak. He or she must be a glib but facile speaker who has an answer to every problem facing America... but none of whose answers are substantive enough to offend any special-interest group. Thus, for example, it's important to be in favor of "energy independence" but not to get pinned down on drilling for oil in ANWR (which offends environmentalists because the caribou might have a warm place to graze); to support stem-cell research, but not differentiate between adult, placental, amniotic-fluid, or even non-destructive embryonic stem-cell research (all of which offend feminists because they don't require destroying an embryo).
  7. Fervor. The most important of all qualifications, given today's Democratic electorate, is that the nominee must be the angriest dog in the world.

A tough set of standards to meet; it's not easy finding a nominee acceptable to the entire party. But I think there is one person who could manage it...

At first I thought the Democrats would just nominate Bill Clinton again.

Pouty Bill

Heck, I was just starting to pack!

But then I realized that he fails the last qualification, being the angriest dog in the world, big time. He's too nice and easy-going; he would never survive first contact with the nutroots. (Clinton does fine with qualification 3, military experience; he can point to his stellar successes in Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo.) Finally, there's that whole stupid 22nd Amendment thingie.

Leaving former President Clinton aside, there is only one person who seems to meet all these requirements; indeed, he is the prototype of a 2008 Democratic nominee. I refer, of course, to this fellow:

Rantin' Al Gore

Am I re-elected yet?

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that Al Gore has not said that he is running. In fact, he has said that he's not running... but not very convincingly. (Adding that he's "not ruling it out" was a dead giveaway.)

Albert Arnold Gore, jr. has a personal history that most Democrats will find compelling:

Al Gore - born to serve

Al Gore is one of only two presidential nominees who was actually born in Washington D.C.; as the other is Pat Buchanan, we can dismiss him and just call old Al the one and only.

His father was long-time senator Albert Gore, sr. Junior was educated at the ultra-elite St. Albans School, alma mater of such luminaries as Sen. Prescott Bush (the father and grandfather of presidents), John F. Kerry, Brit Hume, Strobe Talbott, Jesse Jackson jr., and Gore Vidal.

Aside from his wartime experiences (see next section), Gore has had no job in life other than being a politician -- or an ex-politician. He dropped out of divinity school to successfully run for Congress in 1976; he stayed there until he took his Senate seat in 1985; and he went directly from the Senate to the vice presidency in 1993.

Thus, Gore remains remarkably untainted by the capitalist-pig imperialists who alienate workers and export American jobs to third-world oppressed workers who aren't even paid the American minimum wage. He is Simon pure. (Not to be confused with the late Sen. Paul Simon, who was Simple-Simon pure. Sen. Simon passed away in 2003, immediately after endorsing Howard Dean for the Democratic presidential nomination. The two facts are in no way related.)

True, since his retirement in 2001, Gore was appointed a "visiting professor," he was made vice chairman of an investment firm, "started" another investment firm that develops "responsible" (politically correct) projects, and he was nominated for this year's Nobel Prize. But these are simply sinecures; he certainly wasn't made vice chairman of Metropolitan West because of his vast experience in international finance.

His only real job since leaving the Naval Observatory (that's where the VP's mansion squats, on fowl's legs) has been "environmental activist," specializing in anthropogenic global climate change. Thus, he has no disqualifying stints in the private sector to disqualify him from the office of the presidency.

Al Gore - pacificist warrior

He was in the Vietnam war, thus he can run as a veteran. But during his stint there, he was a reporter; and his unit assigned not one but two soldiers to serve as full time "minders," keeping him away from any and all action. Therefore, Gore can honestly say he is not a baby-killer, unlike that fellow John Kerry (D-Harvard Yard, 100%) and all of his Swift-Boat veteran shipmates.

Al Gore - money machine

He is an aggressive fundraiser and is known to be particuarly popular among Buddhist monks, whose vow of poverty has empowered them to raise millions for Gore in the past.

Unlike other candidates, he would not need to start early to raise the funds for a campaign. Were Gore to declare, he would have tens of millions of dollars in hand within two months: everyone who had ever longed for a return to the Clinton years (albeit, a harder, angrier Bill Clinton), but who was nauseated by Hillary, would donate to Al Gore instead.

Archepiscopos Al - apostle to the eternally aggrieved

Gore has the mother of all political grievances: the "stolen" election of 2000. Although shortly after that dustup was settled, only about 15% - 20% of Democrats believed that "Bushco." literally stole the election (via some sort of corrupt influencing of the Supreme Court), today I would estimate that number is closer to 65%.

Not that any new evidence has come to light indicating that Gore really won Florida. In fact, all the newspaper consortia that studied the issue concluded that, except under extraordinary counting regimes never even contemplated by the aptly named SCOFLA (Supreme Court of Florida), Bush would have won had the real Supreme Court allowed the count to continue.

But during the intervening years, Democratic hatred of Republicans, and especially of George W. Bush, has grown at a feverish (and phychologically unhealthy) pace. Therefore, by the process of "retroactive backformation," many, many more Democrats have decided that the GOP is so vile and evil, they can't have legitimately won the election after all. (The rule of inference they silently invoke is well known: "It must be false because it would be dreadful were it true.")

And remember, while the Supreme Court decision to stop the revoting in Florida was an emphatic 7to 2, the second part of the ruling -- to prevent all further schemes by SCOFLA to keep recounting until, by simple ballot decomposition, Gore finally ended up ahead -- was only 5 to 4: All the conservatives were on one side (Chief Justice Rhenquist, plus Justices O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas); all the liberals were on the other (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter); and the perpetually perplexed Justice Anthony Kenney flipped a coin and supported the former group.

Thus, it's easy as pie to portray the "final decision" as a coup d'état by the Court "right-wingers" that anointed Bush the president, when everybody knows that Gore actually got more votes nationwide (true) and even in Florida (nobody actually "knows" any such thing; but facts are not relevant to a presidential campaign theme).

Al Gore - the St. Albans firebrand

While he was often accused of being dull to the point of soporific when he was in the Senate and when he was vice president, since losing (or "being robbed of") the presidency his third time at bat (after 1988 and 1992), he has recreated himself as a populist, pulpit-pounding preacher, in the mold -- if not the class -- of three-time Democratic presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan.

Gore has more or less dumped his wimpy 2000 campaign theme of "the people versus the powerful" in favor of a pithier message, which appears to be some minor variation on "Republicans want to kill your kids, rape the environment, torture innocent Moslems, and enslave the American worker." He remains unsatisfied.

Any day now, I anticipate a Gore speech that ends with a fiery pledge that "You shall not crucify Personkind upon a cross of carbon!"

He even has a ready-made campaign slogan, one that will likely reverberate throughout the latter half of 2007 and all the way up to the election: Am I re-elected yet?

Why not Gore?

The only objection I can forsee is that Gore might almost be overqualified for the job of Democratic presidential nominee: He may set the standard so high that all future aspirants will look like scrofulous pederasts by comparison. Far-thinking Democrats may thus oppose him, as they already look small enough as it is without having to be compared to the larger-than-life Albert A. Gore, jr.

Certainly it is irrelevant that he is very unlikely to win, for a very obvious reason marked by the invaluable Dean "Soxblog" Barnett, over on Hugh Hewitt's blog:

If you want to know who’s going to win a presidential match-up, ask yourself one simple question: Which candidate is the greater optimist? This simple question will give you the winner going all the way back to FDR. The only arguable exception to this rule would be Richard Nixon’s first victory, and that was because of the historical anomaly that the 1968 Democratic Party had become enthralled with a bunch of filthy hippies. In literally every other match-up, the more optimistic candidate prevailed.

So how does Al Gore fare on the optimism meter? I would submit that an individual who has worked himself into a lather the last several years because he’s convinced the world is imminently coming to an end is unlikely to be the most optimistic guy in a two man race.

While this is certainly true for the general election, it has no bearing on the nominations process. If a rival to Gore's claim to the title should argue, during a debate or in a commercial, that Gore is unelectable because he's too angry, Gore's rejoinder would be instant:

So you're saying I can't win because I'm angry about injustice and furious in my defense of the people? That we need somebody who is complacent about injustice and tepid when defending the downtrodden, the helpless, and the oppressed? That we need somebody like you? Better to die in glorious battle than sell our souls to the highest bidder at Bushco!"

Then he should lean over and spit in the man's face.

After such a response, the debate moderators would have to scrape the unfortunate rival off the stage with a spatula.

Look for Gore to wait a while. He'll wait until Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-At Large, 100%) and Sen. Barack "Abraham" Obama (D-IL, 100%) batter each other into unconsciousness, and for John Edwards to hire Keith Olberman as his campaign spokesman. Then, just as the Democrats are weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth, Al Gore will come riding in on his great white house to save the day.

The nomination will be assured before the first in the nation Iowa caucuses. And Gore, while he may rant, will make a point of not screaming.


Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 26, 2007, at the time of 6:35 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1826


The following hissed in response by: Tomy


Could be, and I'm sure he wants it. But I'm not even sure who I want to be the Republican candidate.

My initial favorite was Romney, but now he strikes me as being dishonest about his conversions. I like Giuliani alot, he comes across as honest and makes the case that his personal position on abortion will not cause him to make pro-abortion decisions. He will nominate conservative judges and will oppose government funded abortions.

He is also the most likely best leader in the long war. As Barnett says, we need a leader who can articulate the positives of reducing the Gap.

Do you have any favorites yet?


The above hissed in response by: Tomy [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 26, 2007 7:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: PC14

Despite the BS that three's supposed to be some sort of charm, fat boys don't win Prez elections. Al, I'm happy to say, has some glandular challenges...a very inconvenient truth.

The above hissed in response by: PC14 [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 26, 2007 8:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: exDemo

The Democrats are into big time, Big Lie politics. And they have the just the candidate. He has the revealed sacred truth.

Any Junior Elmer Gantry without the sense of country to try and use the stooges of the Ambulances chasing fraternity to try and sue his way into the presidency, is the perfect ruthless yet stupid candidate.

He used the legal thieves with their tricks of dividing and confusing measuring only what you wan tot produce the evidence of guilt that is desired. They jsut adaptedd their methods to question the same things. Maybe counting these votes and not those ballots, counting these counties but not those precincts, in short using all the standard tricks of the ambulance chasing trade failed our national socialist man.

Further he has suceeded and poisoned the body politic creating a myth of the illegitimate Bush who stole the Election. Like those idiots who prevented a a necessary Putch for another Leader. Bush stabbed the country in the Back just like that politician that used to complain the exact same thing about his opponents.

He will unleash his "Green Shirts" to liquidate and shout down all those like any scientists who would argue with the convenient doom two centuries off. They must not be allowed to pollute the Aryan, er, excuse me, Planet.

It will unfortunately be necessary to burn their evil analyses and writings less they pollute the mind of right thinking American soziaslists.

We will have to "re-educate" those untermenchen in special camps for those who oppose the reality of... "The Inconceivable Truth" as revealed by our new Ultimate Leader.

Somehow it has a very familiar stench of the 1930s and 1940s in the Europe, that we are told we must emulate.

The above hissed in response by: exDemo [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 26, 2007 8:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


I like both Giuliani and Romney. And no, Romney doesn't strike me as dishonest at all.


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 26, 2007 8:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: 777denny

The thought of Billary Clinton ruining the country again is unbearable to think about.

I, however, am here to bring you good news of great joy!

A new political party is being offered to the tens of millions of Americans who feel that the Republican party and the DemocRAT party have let them down and NOT led them to achieve what they really want our government to do for them.

We want our borders secured and our immigration laws ENFORCED NOW! We want tax reform-and we want it ASAP! We want much more efficient, innovative and effective SMALLER government that gives us more bang for our hard-earned buck. We want Senate rules that currently do not allow an up or down vote for all executive appointment to the federal judiciary changed to allow a constitutional up or down vote. We want our second amendment right to keep and BEAR arms VIGILANTLY protected! We believe America’s best and brightest days are YET to come! We yearn for REAL change that PRODUCES REAL RESULTS that truly satisfies our good desires for our families, America’s future and our posterity. And, we want it all RIGHT NOW!

This new party is called the ‘New Republican Party’ and can be further studied at my website. This party is what we, and millions of others like us, have all been searching for…but it has never existed before…until NOW!

The above hissed in response by: 777denny [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2007 2:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Most people will not join the The New Republican Party 777. Most people do not really want small government {so much as effective government} and most people think that a lot of other people have gone over the deep end on immigration. I for one am not ready to lay land mines at the Mexican border or round up fruit pickers and nannies and put them in box cars for a trip south.

Having said that I hope that Gore does not win, the man is not right in the head.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2007 2:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Davod

Do you want four years of Dems running all three branches of government. Any move to third party candidate will do this.

Just look what we got because enough conservative pundits screamed and moaned that the Republicans in power needed a lesson. Republicans and enough middle-of-the roaders jumped off the the bandwagon and into the path of a runaway train.

The above hissed in response by: Davod [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2007 2:48 AM

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

I have no clue as to who the Democrats will nominate. After all, they nominated Kerry. That should tell any thinking person that they don't know what they are doing.
As to a general election, I don't think Sen. Clinton can win unless the Republicans do something very silly. She might win against Newt, but that is about all. Strangely enough, Newt would be my first choice, but I don't think he can be elected. Edwards is a real lightweight, Obama is an unknown quanity, but I don't think either can be elected. Perhaps they will nominate the Goracle. If so, it should be interesting. The number one enviormental hypocrite running for president. I really would like an intelligent explanation of how carbon offsets are saving the planet. If it is as bad as he says, then I would think he should try to limit his carbon footprint and pay to have others do the same, but no, he is above making any personal sacrifice.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2007 6:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: JGUNS

Regarding Romney.

Here is what I don't get. Conservatives are all up in arms about his "conversion" to pro life and thus some don't want to support him. Why is it that conservatives get held to a higher standard about changes in positions then do Democrats? I understand that the media plays this game, but do conservatives have to do it to? This is POLITICS. I challenge anyone to come up with a politician who hasn't changed his mind about some issue big or small at some point in his career. Also, who are we to judge that Romney hasn't indeed actually changed his mind. In the last 10 years I have certainly changed my mind from pro "choice" to pro life and I can't dismiss others of that capability as well. Additionally, I would have to point out that there are certainly variables that make it easier for me to understand why Romney would have staked out that early pro choice position. Afterall, he was running not only as a Republican in a strong blue state, but as a MORMON. Can't we cut him a little slack? Do conservatives really believe that they can get a Republican candidate that will toe the line on every issue that they believe in AND win with the mainstream?
As with every candidate, conservatives have to determine what is most important and consider what promises the candidate says TODAY.

The above hissed in response by: JGUNS [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2007 8:13 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Today I'd go Romney, Guiliani, McCain, in that order. I'd vote for Condi Rice in a heartbeat. I'd even vote for Powell over any of the Democrats running.

Obama can't win. Ditto Edwards. Clinton might squeak through, but probably not.

Actually I don't see any Democrat that could win. Maybe an unknown governor. But the Dems are in no mood to dominate a winner - they want a firebrand.

Of course the media will do everthing in their poer to get a democrat elected. Several million $ in free advertising won't hurt.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2007 10:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

JGUNS, the problem is one of trust. I don't have a problem with Romney's change of opinion/heart, but it is a fair question to ask: Did you change your mind out of conviction, or out of convenience? I myself think it was out of conviction... but if you aren't sure about why he made THAT decision, you cannot be sure why he's made OTHER decisions. And without an understanding of a candidates motives, you cannot determine what he will do in the future.

Now, the Goracle doesn't have that problem with the Electorate. Whatever the truth is, he is seen as a passionate believer in... whatever he believes in. Quite a positive. In fact, his passion on the farthest Left version of the Environment could give him some real cover to go away from the nutroots on other issues:

What if the Surge works?

If the Surge works to the point that the MSM has to admit it, the anti-Iraq War faction will have their favorite rug pulled out from under them. Al Gore could come in, saying

"...beingamanwhohasHELDhighoffice, IunderstandwhatneedstobedoneinthisVERYimportantpointinAmerica'shistoryandbyelectingmeyouwillbeputtingintoofficeamanwhocandeffectivelyandmorallyprotectAmericawithoutmakingthesituationWorse!"

He DOES go on and on...

The point being, he could hold off on any pronoucements until we know which way the War is going, and with his credentials on the Environment, he could actually come out as a Pro War Democrat Candidate... especially if the MSM steps up behind him and lauds his position as being a War Leader who could Do It Right This Time.

Mind you, I REALLY hope I'm wrong.

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2007 10:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: kymar

Nope on waiting to create his national security position: One of the main reasons Gore re-connected with the nutrots was his full-throated opposition to the Iraq war, which, within a very short time after major combat operations were over and the insurgency started dominating the headlines, he declared the WORST FOREIGN POLICY MISTAKE EVER, and so on... It is however possible to imagine some concatenation of catastrophes making Gore the a last resort candidate under some Neo-New Deal alternative energy/Fortress America program. I personally don't consider this turn of events likely, but only the even less likely simultaneous self-implosion among current top and second tier Democratic candidates would open up enough space for him.

The above hissed in response by: kymar [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2007 11:32 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved