Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Playing the Gore card
Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday he would give Al Gore, a Nobel prize winner, a major role in an Obama administration to address the problem of global warming.Since in recent weeks there has been talk of Al Gore brokering the Democratic Convention, or even stepping in and taking the nomination himself, this would appear to be a fairly major change in the Democratic electoral dynamic, and I'd say Obama is upping the ante in the primary battle with Hillary Clinton. I could be wrong but I suspect this is a card that Hillary cannot play. Does anyone think Gore would like to be part of a second Clinton administration? I suspect not.
The only position higher than a Cabinet post is vice president. While Obama seemed to dangle that possibility in his answer Wednesday, he has repeatedly said it is far too early to discuss potential vice presidents because the nomination has not been won.
It is also not clear that Gore, who had the job for eight years under Bill Clinton, would even want to be a vice president again.
Since leaving the White House, Gore has gone on to become one of the world's leading voices for combating the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. His work earned him a share of the Nobel last year.
The question is, does this help Obama in any power struggle with the Clinton faction? Will it influence Gore in any way that is to Obama's advantage? Will it be dismissed as opportunism? I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I think the timing of the remark is interesting. I think Obama thinks he has Hillary on the ropes and is going for the TKO.
What about the larger election? Would Gore's involvement in an Obama administration help keep Hillary supporters in the fold? Or will it make ambivilent conservatives jump to support McCain? I don't know the answers to these questions either. I've never been a big Gore fan and think he's gotten weirder and more politically extreme with age, but I'm sure I'm hardly representative of the electorate this year.
12 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Apr 02, 06:15:00 PM:
Well, now here you've gone and finally posted something that devastates me in my support of Obama. Can't stand Gore anymore, but I suppose I gotta suck it up and hope it would help Barack win the presidency. You're right, I don't think he would join Hillary's camp in any capacity.
It's not easy being a non-Green, hawkish Democrat.
By 
Escort81, at
Wed Apr 02, 06:49:00 PM:
Gore admitted on 60 Minutes that he had his share of struggles following the 2000 election. Whatever dark night of the soul he went through, he has come out the otherside with much acclaim because of his success in promoting awareness of global warming, strike that, climate change. A man who had been essentially a Blue Dog Democrat (centrist, southerner, central to the succeess of the 1992 campaign) veered off onto a different political tangent.
The only abbreviated parallel I can think of off the top of my head is RFK, who clearly went through a much more serious tragedy with his brother's murder, and changed both personally and politically. The RFK of 1968 was not the same man as the RFK of 1958; even his hagiographers agree with that.
I do not see, however, that having Gore as either VP, Sec State or head of the EPA would be consistent with Obama wanting to move past the politics of division as manifested in the 1990s.
Obama is being a smart politician, essentially saying, yeah, I chat with Al regularly, he's someone I respect and consult with -- which, at a minimum, carries the clear implication that Gore has no problem with Obama as the nominee, whatever remaining quasi-loyalty he has with the Clanton Gang, oops, Clintons. Combined with a few recent endorsements (including Lee Hamilton) and the narrowing of the lead in PA polls, Obama is winding up for the haymaker right hand that will end the campaign, in substance if not in fact. PA is 20 days away, and a narrow win for Hillary is a big loser for her overall -- not enough net delegates gained, no momentum into the rest of the primaries, mediocre performance in a big state demographic she is supposed to do well in, all making her pitch to the remaining supers all the more unconvincing. If Obama actually wins PA, though that is not probable, the supers would come out in droves, and I think that would be game over.
I don't think Gore's potential involvement with a prospective Obama administration is a significant motivating factor for conservatives who are still trying to get their arms around McCain. I think unmotivated red meat conservatives or evangelicals would already want to vote against Hillary (because she is married to Bill) or Obama (because of Rev. Wright and the growing perception that politically, he is a smarter and taller version of Dennis Kucinich). Whether or not they turn out in November may well decide the election -- in Florida in 2000, their turnout was low, but Rove made sure that did not happen in 2004, and the state was carried by several hundred thousand votes.
Hard core Hillary supporters -- the 20% who said in a recent poll that they would not vote for Obama -- will most likely come around by November, such that 3/4s of that 20% will still push the red button. The other 5% may not be determinative if they reside in states that are already solid red. Is there any current evidence that a highly partisan Dem would actually vote for McCain in the general, and do so out of spite?
By , at
Wed Apr 02, 08:09:00 PM:
"Is there any current evidence that a highly partisan Dem would actually vote for McCain in the general, and do so out of spite?"
I don't think you can submit 'evidence' of what is essentially speculation, but a pretty fair chunk of the politically active left are not 'Dem partisans' right now. They are 'Obama' or 'Clinton' partisans. I don't think many will cross over to McCain necessarily, but I think a lot would sit out. It's hard to grit your teeth and vote for a political enemy without a strong motivator and McCain just isn't the bogey man that Bush has been.
By Peter, at
Wed Apr 02, 08:48:00 PM:
By September McCain will be just as big a bogey man as Bush, or Reagan, or even Nixon, have ever been. We are going to be hearing about Keating, his temper, his tendacy to string ugly words together, his divorce and every other thing that might be less than wonderful.
Too many of us on the right do not yet realise that the left hates us. And they don't play fair.
By , at
Wed Apr 02, 09:47:00 PM:
The hard core democrats I know would NEVER EVER vote for a Republican.
It'll be interesting to see how this one winds down. You can believe that Hillary's people are planning to get out the vote to make the convention a spectacle. Personally, I'd like to see it happen. I was't old enough in '68 to understand what happened.
The Clinton's are nasty people, and Obama's no JFK, so bring on the dirty politics. I think McCain can taste this one, and as pissed off as he might get, he's got time to prepare for it and measure his words.
We already know that Hillary and Obama are liars. They'll be fair game for McCain and his operatives.
By pst314, at
Wed Apr 02, 10:32:00 PM:
One problem with Obama selecting Al Gore: Gore is and always was a demagogue who never hesitates to explicitly label those who disagree as evil. Not a good choice for a candidate who promotes himself as a "healer".
By Khaki Elephant, at
Thu Apr 03, 12:31:00 AM:
But you can't blame Obama for playing the card. There's a lot of mileage to be had from a chubby Nobel Prize winner, no matter how nutty.
By Escort81, at
Thu Apr 03, 12:59:00 AM:
DF82 -
Yup, poor word choice on my part; no 'evidence' of crossovers, but it is just hard to see that happening. You probably have it right that a few per cent could sit out the general election, which is only important if they happen to reside in swing states.
We have been hearing how big the turnout has been in the Democratic primaries (including many new actual registrations in closed primary states, not so much Limbaugh-driven Republican crossovers), and it seems logical to believe that Dem turnout will be high in the general. I do think McCain has the ability to attract Independents (who are a big part of the electorate) and people who lean Democrat, which is why I believe the November election will be close -- roughly along the lines of 2004.
If Obama wins in a 1964 LBJ-style landslide, it means one or a combination of things happened: 1) McCain suffered a series of world-class gaffes; 2) McCain's senior campaign people performed poorly; 3) another significant terrorist attack happens, for which the American people largely blame the Reublican administration and, somehow, McCain by extention (although it could well be argued that an attack would have a rally 'round the flag effect and draw people to McCain as the best national security candidate); 4) the country moved significantly leftward faster than anyone could have contemplated, and Obama's politics are a fair representation of the American center.
Peter is likely correct above that the Dem 527s will go hard after McCain, but that fire will go heavy in both directions. The Republican 527 ads almost write/Wright themselves, and the mash-ups are already on YouTube. That'll be old news by October (Wright, that is; it's already old news and Obama is gaining in PA and putting Wright behind him), and unless other revelations come out, the 527s could backfire on both sides, blowing up like a premature IED.
By , at
Thu Apr 03, 11:26:00 AM:
Thats all we need is a cabnet under KING OBAMA with AL BORE in a big time role to reduce america to a third world status and force us into the junk science inspired KYOTO TREATY WE SURE DONT NEED ETHER OF THESE DEMACROOKS IN OFFICE OR ANYHWERE NEAR WASAHINGTON D.C.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Thu Apr 03, 01:50:00 PM:
Pee Wee, do you have a brother named Bird of Paradise?
By , at
Thu Apr 03, 05:42:00 PM:
"We have been hearing how big the turnout has been in the Democratic primaries (including many new actual registrations in closed primary states, not so much Limbaugh-driven Republican crossovers), and it seems logical to believe that Dem turnout will be high in the general."
Ah, but don't you see how that can backfire? Myriads of new voters (primary voters, no less) imply the appearance of a great issue that they all care about that wrenched them from their normal day to day drudgery and political apathy. In this case, the issue at hand is one of the two remaining candidates.
One of these groups of motivated idealists is going to be sorely disappointed, and blame for that disappointment will rest squarely on the Democratic rival. Whether this group of people will vote for their former Democratic opponent or not vote at all is, I think, even chances. But again, there's no way to prove or even really support that until after the fact.
The Republican candidate was settled upon early enough that the bitterly disappointed among them (social conservatives who bet the farm on Huckabee, mostly) who initially swore that they'd never vote for McCain ("we'll sit out and let the Dems win... that'll show 'em." Such words were typed here on this blog's comments; I remember because I argued with them) have since come around to, "well... maybe I'll vote for McCain. At least he's not a socialist." Time heals all wounds, you know.
Remembering this vitriol, and from a less caustic contest than that between Obama and Clinton, I don't think it's a stretch to predict a similar effect among Democrats. One of them has to lose, and I think that the loser's minions will feel disenfranchised and betrayed by their party and react by sitting out in the general.
Between this effect, and McCain's centrist appeal, I think that those people harping about a sure-fire Democratic victory are fools. I don't think he'll penetrate strongholds like California and New York, but Florida? Ohio? New Hampshire? He's doing pretty well now, and he's been holding his fire. After battle commences for real, I think he'll take them.
By , at
Thu Apr 03, 07:03:00 PM:
Actually, I saw this just today as well.
"So, you want to be a McCain Democrat?"
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/03/so_you_want_to_be_a_mccain_democrat/
A highly partisan piece written by a radio-station 'political analyst' and published by the Boston Globe that is trying to discourage crossovers by Democrats whose choice candidate loses. (by using half-truths and vague assertions, no less)
And some people still swear that there's no liberal bias in the media...
