This is a quick response to chaskagirl's post:
What's With the Gore People, Anyway?.
Posting it as a diary because of the important fact that had previously not been mentioned: Clinton's personal favorables on election day were 36%, and 44% said that the scandals were either very or somewhat important. Source: 2000 exit polls
Response to chaskagirl below the fold.
Remember 2000? The election was his to lose-- and he lost it.
Nope. The 2000 campaign was Gore's to win: As far back as March, 1999 Bush led Gore in polls 52-41.
CNN Poll, March 5, 1999
Suppose the election for president in the year 2000 were being held today, and you had to choose between Vice President Al Gore, the Democrat, and Texas Governor George W. Bush, the Republican. For whom would you vote -- Gore or Bush?
George W. Bush 52%
Al Gore 41
That was essentially Clinton scandal backlash ("Clinton fatigue"). Other margins from early 1999 were larger. See the diary: Gore was not a weak candidate in 2000 for more polling data and general picture of the race.
Oh yeah, we all know he really won. But by such a narrow margin in key states that . . . well . . . we all know what happened.
Gore did win, overcoming mitigating factors including: Clinton scandal, MSM relentlessly spinning Rove's lies, Nader and friends hitting him at the knees all the way.
The election should have been a shoo-in. Clinton was quite popular even during the height of Monicagate. The economy was solid. The sky was the limit. So what did Gore do?
That's a factually incorrect, because, the election was already handicapped by the scandal, despite the roaring successes of the Clinton/Gore administration (including 22 million NET new jobs, and lowest umemployment (3.9%) in 30 years, and turning record deficits to record surpluses). Why? In addition to the early 1999 polls, let us look at election day exit polls:
On election day in 2000 (from 2000 exit polls):
Clinton Job Rating: 57% approve, 41% disapprove
Opinion of Clinton as a Person: 36% favorable, 60% unfavorable
Clinton Scandals Were...: Very Important (24%), Somewhat Important (20%), Not Too Important(17%), Not Important At All (37%). So, 44% felt that the scandal was important in their choice for 2000. A deeply mitigating factor.
Gore had strong job approval (60%) AND decent favorability (55%) throughout the season (check
pollingreport.com).
The only implication is simple: Clinton's scandals cost Gore dearly (among other mitigating factors, but this was the big whopper).
He listened to some dumb consultants who told him he needed distance from his old boss in order to appeal to six or seven swing voters in Ohio. What if Gore had worked a little harder to win Nader voters in Florida instead?
To Ms. Super Duper Strategist chaskagirl: you should have signed on as a consultant for the Gore campaign then, sweetheart :)
There is compelling evidence (parts of which as mentioned above) to show that Gore had substantial obstacles not of his making to overcome in 2000.
And he looked and sounded BORING.
Sounded boring if you didn't want to listen. But important stuff, you know, like global warming is sometimes boring. Read Daily Howler's new post on Debate 2.
He ran a bad campaign. Does anyone remember this? Why do people think he deserves a second chance? He had a nice fat pitch right over the plate and he hit a pop up to center.
Jesus. If I had a nickel...
Again, Gore didn't run a bad campaign. Gore ran a decent enough campaign to overcome substantial odds, and won the popular vote on election day.
With so much more at stake, and with so many more challenges (the voting situation has gotten WORSE, not better), why do people think he can shake it off and come back as a different candidate?
Personally, I don't want a Gore challenge in 2008. I want to see a governor, like Warner or Vilsack. Not Hillary. Not Al. Not anybody who reminds me of the bitter, traumatic loss of 2000. Not Kerry, who apparently listened to Gore's people a little too much as well. They are all fine individuals. But I'd prefer to see them cheering from the sidelines in 2008.
Then cheer for your guy/gal, and show how she/he is better qualified than Gore to be president, and stop making a nonsensical anti-Gore case for getting there. Are your candidates that weak that you can't make a positive case for them?
Ok, I get it. Gore's a great guy. He's likeable, funny, smart, sincere, forward-thinking. But is he the best candidate for 2008?
He is the best qualified, experienced and capable person to be President in 2008. He is honorable and decent too.
Al Gore for President: The vision of FDR, the morality of Gandhi and Dr. King!
And don't forget. You can help us draft Al Gore by joining us at The Gore Portal and pitch in ideas, energy and initiative.