Andrea's Adventures in Binkyland

Andrea, I whole-heartedly agree with you. Not one of the democratic candidates have the power to make a dent in the GOP armor right now. The only person that could have has said he won't run.

To borrow from Simon and Garfunkel: Where have you gone our former VP? The nation's true and fearless democrats turn their lonely eyes to you.

America loves an underdog...but hates a loser. IIRC, no defeated presidential candidate has ever been elected in a subsequent presidential run. Think Adlai Stevenson, or whoever he was, that ran, and lost, repeatedly. Gore knows this, and knows he must pass the torch. That's why he said he will support a candidate. He just hasn't seen who has the most public support yet. Clinton would be a good bet, but she isn't running. She wants to win big when she runs, and a Republican win this coming election will make her a shoo-in in 2008. While she plays it safe we get another Republican for four years. If we don't her plan is screwed, because you can't fight an incumbent. If she isn't running, it's because there's no significant chance of a Democrat getting elected.

Sorry, mom, but that's not entirely true. It was a much-quoted fact in 2000 that in every previous case where a candidate won the popular vote but lost the election, he has always come back to win the election in the next race. That's not entirely true, either, but still, see: Grover Cleveland.

Candidates have gone on to win after previously losing, though. And not just in the early days of the nation, when there were only the same five guys running in the first seven elections... Reagan ran and lost in 1976. (He got 1 electoral vote.) Willian Harrison ran and lost in 1836.

And Gore hasn't been running and running and losing for several elections, like Adlai Stevenson or Eugene Debs, or even Ross Perot.

But I also really believe that the world is a much different place now than it was ten and twenty and a hundred years ago. The Internet has changed a lot, including politics. Look at MoveOn.org and what a political dynamo it's become in just a year or so.

I still have a really bad feeling, in no small part because there are people I know and like, people who I respect as having intellectual capacity, who believe Bush and company are doing a great job and deserve to be elected. The difference between me and them is: I *don't* trust the government to do the right thing. I *don't* believe politicians are acting in the public interest. And I *don't* believe that those in power simply know better than me.

Notice:

The only discernable voices coming from the Democrats right now on the presidential race are those willing to call Bush on the worst portions of his administration. Unfortunately, I tend to agree that this might not win an election alone.... though it is entirely possible. You might ask why the Democrats aren't putting forth a stronger effort, and I think I'll tell you why in my opinion. I sense despair, and futility coming from the democratic party leadership. They think this election is already lost, and are gearing themselves up to try and take as many congressional seats as they can, to do what they can to keep things stable under ANOTHER 4 years of Bush. This is what I see them doing. Why would they feel this way? When there are so many scandals to break open on this administration? Because they're worried about breaking the integrity of the government, and shaking people out of their current contentment. There's more than enough readily available and damning evidence on vote fixing in Florida.... and elsewhere, if you look. They're fighting cheaters, they know it, and their two options are to try and win anyways, knowing they probably can't, or destroy the current governing bodies. Well, or they can try to cheat, too. And probably are, in my opinion. ;)
I predict at least one more Democratic Senate death in 2004. I ought to go check who's up for re-election that year in the senate, so I can try to predict exactly who it will be.

As a veteran government person I would say the people are getting the programming they are asking for. Other than the brave Republican Alabama Governor, I see no one saying the tax cut was a bad idea. He said we would have trillions in surplus so a big cut was called for but he did not anticipate. I see no one saying maybe the idea of the projection of American power is not as effective as having a stable, collaborative relationships and having a real coalition project power (Bush is vulnerable on the trust of others issue). He did not anticipate the problems in post-war Iraq. He said there would be health care for all but he did not anticipate the problems with the medicaid budget and the disenrollment of providers. He said leave no child behind, all teachers certified but State budgets do not allow even the current level of services in many places. No one is calling him on his magic wand mentality. Howard Dean contradicts himself, Kerry is a pretty boy but too liberal for most, etc., etc. I liked Gore and would consider a draft Gore campaign. Green Party anyone?

I have to say that I don't think Gore can win and while I would probably vote for him were he the democratic candidate, I wouldn't be happy about that situation. I don't think he's electable. I have the same issues with Kucinich, Gephardt, and what's his name who was the vice pres candidate last time. I don't thinkk they can win. Dean and Kerry are the only two that look electable to me. The Dean campaign has a lot of energy here in Ann Arbor.

I still have major issues with the democratic pres. campaign platform, however, and feel it might cripple any candidate. So far the Democrats have lacked vision. If they could walk up with a solid solution to what you should do in Iraq and Aphganistan for the next four years, I think that would be a huge step.