Daily Kos

2008's Second Season

Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:47:17 PM PDT

America’s omnipresent attention deficit disorder is again on an annual collision course with the lazy hazy crazy days of summer. With more temptations calling our attention than sun drenched hours fill a day; few among us have the patience to sit still for 3 long months of Reruns. Catering to our need for novelty, TV moguls years back bit the bullet and introduced TV’s "Second Season", alive with new characters, new plot lines; and compelling new reasons to tune in for an enhanced summer lineup.

So what’s in store for 2007? Some new Presidential candidates for us to follow, of course. In an era where networks fail to distinguish between their news and entertainment divisions, politics becomes another genre of "Reality TV". "The Race for the White House" may be a popular hit, but its cast of characters hasn’t changed in six months. That’s far too long without new blood. There is a real risk of the ratings falling well before the scheduled Fall roll out of "Rounding the Final Corner."

I write the above as a parody of sorts but the truth is too close for comfort. Media buzz can make or break a political candidate, and the media craves new personalities to promote, as well as classic conflicts to exploit. And so too does the public, which burns through new Reality TV shows like there’s no tomorrow. Even the most popular stand bys depend on new wrinkles to stay topical. As political reporting edges closer to center stage with the first 2008 primaries little more than six months off, those dueling political love triangles that the media has obsessed over continually are starting to lose their luster. Look, it’s still Rudy, John and Mitt mixing it up in the right corner, while yonder over left Hillary, John and Obama are still going at it. Is that all there is? Is that all there will be for six more months? Somehow I doubt it.

Actually the pundits already agree. On the Republican side at least, the race is viewed as wide open for Fred Thompson to join. Like Al Gore on the Democratic side, Fred Thompson is an iconic legend, an experienced political giant waiting in the wings, whose personal quest for the Presidency previously was denied by the narrowest of artificial margins, when the Supreme Court of the United... no, wait a minute, scratch that about Thompson, I was on the wrong page. Actually Fred Thompson is an ex back bench U.S. Senator who served for just 8 years ending in 2003, but many now say he is the right man for these times. Thompson might even be the long sought after "Next Reagan". After all, he too is an actor. And it’s not just Fred Thompson whose been spotted in the G.O.P on deck circle; Chuck Hagel pops up sometimes also, with it never being said of him that it’s too late to enter the 2008 race. Even the G.O.P.'s fall guy from the past, Newt Ginritch, still gets a media future nod or two.

With Fred Thompson reportedly poised to officially enter the G.O.P. field within the month, a contemporary political truism stands ready to fall. Simply put it is this: with 2008’s Presidential race already costing record amounts of money, with the primary schedule now so condensed, and with a surplus of candidates currently crowding the media spotlight for attention, unless your name is Al Gore the time for throwing your hat in the ring has already passed. Nah. That's an urban Washington myth. Just watch and bear witness to the pending launch of 2008’s Presidential Second Season, as a new window of Presidential ambitions opens, and fresh faces eye the beckoning glare of a restless media’s fickle attention.

For this, much is owed to Al Gore, the actual political titan still waiting in the wings where he effectively underscores potential inadequacies in the previously announced Presidential field. Gore’s large and looming presence helped forge a widely shared though not as widely spoken conviction that the 2008 Presidential field is not yet set in stone. We know Al Gore. We watched Al Gore serve 8 years as America’s Vice President, then go on to win the 2000 Popular Vote to be President. Clearly Fred Thompson is no Al Gore, yet as we enter June of 2007, Fred Thompson is suddenly a decidedly viable potential Presidential candidate.

The media can quickly bolster Thompson’s chances if they choose to; or if they need to find a new political drama to pump up. At this supposedly "late date" they can breathe life into Thompson all by themselves or a push by forces active in the Republican base might still do so also; both paths to Thompson’s nomination remain plausible, despite the rest of the Republican field starting out with a 6 month head start on good old Fred.

In fact for both "B Teams" of Presidential candidates, those not linked to their political party’s dominant Presidential love triangles, having started their races so early may now be working to their disadvantage. They all risk type casting as familiar bit players rather than fresh new faces being yearned for. They certainly can’t draw attention to themselves by shaking up the field now via a late entry into it. Six months of overt campaigning with little to show for it has solidified their standing as overlooked. Fred Thompson looks like a better bet now than he would have in January.

So what of the Democratic side of the 08 ledger then, where the contemporary political myth of the closed Presidential field seems to be written deepest in stone? For starters, obviously Al Gore can still run if he wants to, though whether he wants to remains less obvious. Al Gore would be a formidable candidate if he sets his mind to it, but it isn’t just what Gore brings to the table that makes a second season entry viable, it’s also what the currently favored Democrats don’t.

Barack Obama is talented inspirational and charismatic, but he was still a state legislator the last time we elected a President, and in 2008 we will be electing the next "leader of the free world" at a time when the wheels in our corner at least appear to be falling off it. John Edwards is clearly talented as well, and while many view Edwards as a bit less inexperienced than Barack Obama, having one full term in the Senate under his belt, many also view Edwards as a bit less inspirational and charismatic than Obama.

Should the Democrats nominate Barack Obama, it is obvious to many observers that he will be harshly attacked during the General Election campaign over the brevity of his resume for one seeking the job of Commander in Chief. Should the Democrats nominate John Edwards, it is obvious to many observers that he will be harshly attacked during the General Election campaign over conflicts between his current positions and his prior voting record in the United States Senate that make the John Kerry of 2004 seem like consistency's Rock of Gibraltar by comparison.

And what about Hillary Clinton? Again, she too is obviously talented, and as the first female major Party candidate with a real chance of getting elected President, she comes with her own share of inspiration and charisma as well. Most will grant Clinton some experience credentials, but Hillary is also probably the only person in America capable of unifying and motivating an increasingly shattered Republican Party while simultaneously depressing influential activist elements of the Democratic Party’s base. Not exactly the strongest credentials for leading the Democratic Party to victory in 2008.

None of the above condemns either Obama Edwards or Clinton as unwinnable 2008 candidates, but neither are any of them remotely unbeatable, and the longer this 2008 Presidential Marathon race drags on, the more chinks in their collective front runner armor manifest. In a recent Iowa poll high numbers of voters, who can arguably be called the most knowledgeable in the nation about the current Democratic candidates, say they would still like to see additional candidates enter the race:
http://desmoinesregister.com/...

Over the last 50 years almost all Democratic Party front runners for the Presidential nomination (excepting sitting Presidents and VP’s) peaked too early and fell far short. And those races all started in earnest far later than this. There is space still set aside for Al Gore at the Democrats 2008 Presidential Table, but should he not step forward another candidate may well claim it, and that candidate most likely would be General Wesley Clark, another Democrat with an impressive resume and strong leadership credentials, who still pointedly repeats "I haven’t said I’m not running" whenever he is asked.

So it is not too late for either Al Gore or Wes Clark to enter the Presidential race, since the 2008 second season hasn’t even started yet. That window of opportunity officially reopens on the day Fred Thompson steps through it into the equally crowded Republican field. For those who claim that the Democratic nominee will inevitably emerge from the current front runners, I remind them that not long ago Hillary Clinton was deemed the inevitable Democratic nominee, while Barack Obama was merely a promising first term Senator. The official DNC Presidential Debates don’t start until mid July, most Democratic voters won’t tune in seriously before September at the earliest, and big money can quickly be raised from multiple small sources, as Barack Obama has emphatically shown.

And how might Wes Clark determine if Al Gore is passing on another Presidential run? Perhaps by the simplest means possible. I assume they both have each other’s phone number.

Tags: Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Fred Thompson, 2008 elections, primaries (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 26 comments

  •  I'm posting this late in the day (8+ / 0-)

    It was the only chance I had to post this Diary before leaving on a work trip at dawn, so pardon me if I am not around for long to respond to any stray comments that find their way onto this Diary at this odd hour.

    Regarding the poll linked to above, here is a snippet from the May 20th story that contains it:

    "A new Des Moines Register poll suggests that Iowans likely to participate in the January caucuses aren't entirely satisfied with the list of declared candidates.

    Forty-four percent of likely Democratic caucus participants say they'd like to see the race include Gore, the former vice president who lost by a whisker to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election...

    ...Twenty-three percent want Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' nominee in 2004, to run again, and 20 percent would like retired General Wesley Clark to join the field."

    I will point out that the combined totals in that poll of those currently supporting Edwards, Obama or Clinton for the nomination, are exceeded by the combined totals of those who still want to see Gore, Kerry or Clark enter the race for it. While that doesn't directly translate into the latter three having as much or more current active support as the present three announced front runners, it does indicate that substantial fluidity still exists at this stage of the Democratic Presidential contest, in Iowa at least.

  •  Gore might run, Clark probably won't (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Demi Moaned

    Gore has hinted recently that he's open to it. Unlike Clark, he can get away with a late run due to much higher name recognition and because he's staying in the public eye due to "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Assault on Reason". Clark's chance to get into the race for 2008 was 3-4 months ago at least.
    Personally, I think that Thompson will end up being 2008's version of Clark. Like the Democrats in 2003, the Republicans in 2007 are disillusioned and divided, and like our side four years ago, they enter the 2008 election cycle as underdogs. Like Clark in 2003, Thompson is see as a knight riding in on a white horse to save the day and reaffirm what his party stands for. Personally, I think that Thompson will do well, but Rudy McRomney will still win, especially since larger states such as California and New York will have earlier primaries, making Iowa, New Hampshire and SOuth Carolina less relevant (assuming that there is no one who beats the expectations game like Kerry did, which catapulted him to the nomination due to the frontloaded schedule.)

    •  Too late for Clark? (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jen, Sybil Liberty, witchamakallit

      What you say about Clark is very much in line with the CW, and may be quite right for all I know.

      If so, it's regrettable at many levels-- not least because I think the next President is going to face formidable challenges and I think we need more than what any of our 3 frontrunners brings to the table.

      But I also hate how much attention the Presidential race is taking at this point when we have such serious, urgent issues facing the nation-- when so much needs to be done before the next term.

      It's become a kind of political sideshow that diverts us from the real issues.

    •  I can't agree (6+ / 0-)

      Frankly, I'm not inspired by any candidate in the race so far.
      You can't really compare Thompson to Clark...Fred Thompson was a lack-luster Senator who served 8 years (some have characterized his Senate service as "lazy"). So what if he is a TV actor. We already elected an actor once, it didn't turn out that great.  :/
      Clark has had a lifetime of achievements in service to this country, rising to the highest ranks of the Military (no small feat).
      We need an exceptional candidate, and I don't see that among the current crop of candidates, on either side.
      I really like Gore, he was my President, after all.  I don't think he has the "fire in the belly" to run again, though. Like he said on one interview show, you can serve in a lot of other ways. That's what Wes Clark is doing now, at well.
      Both Clark and Gore are out there, working on the issues now instead of running around the country auditioning for the nomination.
      The Democrats' frontrunners are all one-term Senators with scant experience on world affairs, foreign policy, diplomacy, and executive experience. And all are espousing what they will do in two years to address the problems this country faces, instead of working on the problems now.  Let's see some leadership in the Senate for  a change, instead of a bunch of political posturing. Senators were elected to do a job in Congress, not to run around campaigning for President. If any of them were my Senator, I'd be pissed.
      I am still hoping that Clark will run. Barring that, I hope Gore steps in. They are the only two Democrats that get the broader picture of world affairs.  

      •  You expressed my feelings also beautifully here (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        ArkySue, jen, witchamakallit, Demi Moaned

        Part of the reason why less Democrats seem currently anxious over the choices we seem to now have in 2008 candidates compared to how Republicans seem to feel can be chalked up to the current grave misfortunes of the Bush Administration, which makes it easy to imagine that any of our candidates can win in a cake walk in 2008, a theme others have raised in comments here.  

        That simply will not be the case. We certainly will try to spin it that way but the literal truth is that whoever we nominate in 2008 will NOT be running against George W Bush, and the National Republican Party is masterful at making Democratic candidates run against their own prior records or lack of same rather than focusing on the Republican they actually are facing.

        The dual crisis of an ever widening state of war and environmental catastophy make the next election a test of real leadership. The Republicans, like always, will not truly face reality, they will peddle their own ideologically convenient fantasy instead, in a form carefully engeneered to appeal to a narrow majority of 2008's voters. It will fall to Democrats to speak the truth forcefully with the credibility needed to shred the Republican deception. I look to a Wes Clark or an Al Gore to do that best.

        If Wes Clark enters the race during the Summer Second season, the leadership qualities he possesses, and the coherent and compelling vision he has for America will soon become obvious to voters. It is not too late for Wes Clark. He is right on time if he so chooses.

      •  What a Great Comment (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        ArkySue, Dormaphaea, jen, witchamakallit

        Both Clark and Gore are out there, working on the issues now instead of running around the country auditioning for the nomination.
        The Democrats' frontrunners are all one-term Senators with scant experience on world affairs, foreign policy, diplomacy, and executive experience. And all are espousing what they will do in two years to address the problems this country faces, instead of working on the problems now.

        You completely articulate the source of my own exasperation with the little Personality Show currently running called the 2008 Presidential race. It's such an implicit endorsement of the status quo.

        I want someone who cares about what happens to this country while George Bush is still in office. Not someone who's just waiting for a chance to try hir* hand at it.
        (*- conflation of 'his' and 'her'.)

    •  In my little dream world (5+ / 0-)

      Clark and Gore talk to each other and have both decided Gore can do more and be heard more widely being a private citizen, and that Clark can do more by being our 44th president. Clark will throw his hat in the ring once he has done all he can to avert a war with Iran, and Gore will endorse him. ;)

      Or perhaps Gore would want a cabinet position in a Clark administration?

      I can't imagine either of them wanting to enter the joke Corporate Press has made of our presidential elections, but for the sake of us all I hope one of them does.

      Thanks for the thoughtful analysis Tom Rinaldo. All sounds good and right to me.

      Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right. --Hunter/Garcia

      by jen on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:43:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gore/Clark '08 ?? (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Cory, CalifSherry, jen, Demi Moaned, Lena

    Imagine that Gore and Clark agree to run together as a team...

    I can see the bumperstickers and buttons now:

    <center>GORE & CLARK 2008
    This time elect smart people!
    </center>

    Won't it be nice to have a SMART President?

    by ibonewits on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:30:18 PM PDT

    •  Well, I'm a Clarkie (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Cory, CalifSherry, ibonewits, Demi Moaned

      through and through, but your little bumper sticker gave me butterflies in my tummy! Based on the feeling it triggered I'd have to  agree! That ticket would be killer!

      Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right. --Hunter/Garcia

      by jen on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:49:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clark/Spitzer (0+ / 0-)

        That's my dream ticket.

        Meaning no disrespect to Gore. I think he really would prefer not to run. I think he likes being the independent agent. And I think he would have plenty of influence under a Clark Administration even though he might not hold an official post.

    •  Draft A Real Leader For President (6+ / 0-)

      If I had it in me to create a new movement that might be it. I visualize a web site with that slogan fixed at the center of the home page, while around it one finds two photos, one of Al Gore and the other of Wes Clark.  One minute one man's photo would rotate to the top of the page, while the next minute the other would rise to that position instead. Click on either and you will find compelling summaries of both men's careers and their thoughtful vision for the future.

      I beieve that both Al Gore and Wes Clark are fully prepared to lead both this nation AND the world right now; through the dangers we currently face into the promise the future still holds for us.

      This may well sound trite, but for both Al Gore and Wes Clark it rings true to me: both of them have been hard at work tirelessly pursuing solutions to the major challanges facing the world today, ratber than pursuing votes for themselves in early primary states. I honestly see them as true leaders for our time, each of them, and I hope at least one of them will seize this second chance to enter the Presidential race.

      For various reasons I can make a casae for why, of the two, Wes Clark should be the Democratic nominee in 2008, but I have no motivation now to do so. I would be thrilled to have the opportunity to support either of these men in 2008.

      Perhaps Wes Clark would serve as Al Gore's VP, though Clark hasn't shown any interest in that position in the past. They would make an incredible team. I very much doubt that Gore would serve as VP again but he doesn't need another elected position now to be a world leader.

      In a Clark Administration Gore would be an American Ambassador both TO and FOR the world. They each truly get the global issues of our time. I have no doubt that if either becomes our next President that the talents of the other would be fully liberated and constantly employed.

      We don't get to vote for a ticket in the primaries, but I pray that we get to vote for one or both of these men to become President.

      •  Clark/Gore - Gore/Clark (0+ / 0-)

        has been running round my mind, too. Just can't see either being ok with the #2 slot.

        •  My Draft movement wouldn't sweat that detail (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          CalifSherry, jen, ibonewits

          Right now we don't know for sure if either man will run, and to the extent that I have my miniscule say in it, that is completely unacceptable. If by some stroke of good faith both men agreed to run, some of us would fall in foremost behind Clark, and others Gore, but we would still have mutual respect between the camps, as I am sure there is mutual respect between these two leaders.

          Can you imagine how the tone of the Democratic race would be eleveted by the addition of both men? Can you imagine opening up Daily Kos each morning to read commentary on the appearances and statements that each man made the prior night? It's a dream worth having, but I would gladly settle for either Clark or Gore running. I have no doubt that whichever of them didn't would still find ample opportunities to provide service to our nation and the world. And under the Democratic Administration that either of them would lead in 2009, the services the other had to offer, in whatever capacity, would be warmly supported and embraced.

  •  Great diary Tom (6+ / 0-)

    But then, we know to expect your thinking to provoke our thoughts.

    There are so many moving pieces now, it is difficult to see where they will come to rest.

    For me, two of my beliefs remain firm: this election will be about change and foreign policy/Iraq. No matter what happens between today and Nov. 08 in Iraq, it will remain at the top of the charts.

    Other than that, I have no predictions. Oh maybe one: the Democrats need to give this nomination some serious thought. Winning may look like a "cake walk" today, but those cake walks have a way of getting very slippery very fast. I do not see a cake walk at all. Americans have a history of keeping a divided government. One of qualities I like about Clark is although he is very much in the Democratic progressive camp, he doesn't seem that way to the casual voter.

    Gore would have an easier time winning the nomination, and Clark would an easier time winning the General Election. So I would encourage people to look to the far horizon....I'd like to celebrate a win in Nov. 08.

  •  Judging by the overt statements (5+ / 0-)

    and body language of the two men, Clark seems to really want to run, and is looking for a way to get into the race, while Gore is torn between his environmental issues and campaigning.

    I like both of them. I would be somewhat happier if Clark were to get in, but I'd be extremely happy with Gore too.

  •  Beautifully and reasoned, Tom Rinaldo (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jen, witchamakallit

    Knowing your admiration of Wes Clark, that your conclusion includes him is no surprise. Still, I loved the quiet and methodical dance of your mind.

    Travel safely.

    •  No, it's no surprise lol (4+ / 0-)

      and thank you for your gracious comment, but it is telling to me that unlike other names of Democrats people can dream up who still might run for President, Wes Clark does not deny that he still thinks about it very seriously. And anyone with half a brain can quickly see that it is no accident that Al Gore has not yet slammed and locked that particular door.

      Both of these men can be ready to mount a national campaign quickly, they have each been through it before, they both know the ropes, and they both have legions of passionate supporters already standing by.

      Yes it would be easier for Al Gore to instantly be accepted as one of the front runners as soon as he announced, for a number of sound reasons. But Wes Clark does not need to receive that instant recognition in order to become increasingly viable as the race progresses. There is no one in the Democratic Party with more credibility and expertise on matters of national security than General Clark, and that would soon become very apparent to voters if he announced.

      •  What if no one hears about it? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        witchamakallit

        There is no one in the Democratic Party with more credibility and expertise on matters of national security than General Clark, and that would soon become very apparent to voters if he announced.

        I'm 100% with you on the merits of Clark. My fear is that his campaign would be trivialized by underreporting and condescending commentary. There's so much money in play behind the scenes. And Clark would be a real threat to the status quo.

        I do think he's wise to stay out of the current circus. I hope he runs. I will give everything I can. I've never said that about a Presidential candidate before.

        •  I've followed Clark closely for the last year (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          witchamakallit, Demi Moaned

          He will be blessed by the godsend of lowered expectations that he caneasily shatter, which itself is a sure path to greater recognition.

          Wes Clark has the ability to electrify an audiance, or to stun it into silence, when he speaks passionately and ernestly about his deepest felt convictions. I've seen that numerous times over the last year. And I've seen him blow away the most sophisticated crowd with his sure grasp on the issues and his clarity of vision on how we must procede.

          If you ever get the chance to watch Wes Clark field questions from an audiance live, his ability to talk about the most complex matters off the cuff in clear and compelling language is startling. Clark is at his best in a town hall setting. His candor is unsettling, and it always makes for dramatic sound and video bites on the following day when someone uploads a video that they took of him the night before.

          What Clark needs to rise in the polls is the opportunity to get out there regularly speaking on the issues in front of voters. He is a true political maverick, the real deal compared to the false prophet of straight talking that John McCain was made out to be when he first ran for the Republican nomination in 2000.

  •  newt will torpedo thompson (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jen, Demi Moaned

    newt has decided the nomination is his for the taking and he's about a thousand times more ambitous than aging lothario fred...

    he will not allow the unchallenged formation of a "fred is the new ronnie" wagon...
    the republicans are in full disarray and i, for one, am enjoying the show

    •  It's plausible (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jen, memofromturner

      And it is further evidence of the fallacy of the "fields now set in stone" myth.

      Media storms blow up suddenly and forcably in today's heated climate of celebrity warming. To think that no one else now has time to gain enough traction to compete for a Presidential nomination is wind sheer nonesense.

Permalink | 26 comments