Martin,

Please get a grip on yourself.  A contested nomination all the way to the convention will not destroy anything.  It'll be exciting.  Fun to watch. Free publicity galore.

And I hate to tell you this, but either D candidate beats McCain.

Dan

email I sent to CHarles Hurt of NYPost:

Mr Hurt,

A deus ex Gore is about as likely as your average California lotus-eater trading sunshine and the beach for midwestern or Jersey slush.  Ain't gonna happen. Consider:

Gore has spent the last 7 or so years surrounded by adoring legions of SoCal bubbleheads, NorCal gazillionaire gearheads, and Wall Street greedheads. He can say whatever he pleases without fear of being challenged, and everyone treats him as if he were the Dauphin of Davos, the digital philosopher king-in-the-wings. Why exchange your 5-star harem for the equivalent of a nagging mother-in-law and a Motel 8 room full of screaming brats?

Then there's the money. As a private citizen far from the scrutiny of the press (hint, hint), Gore has access to all manner of fabulous early-stage investment opportunities, many of which skirt the line between policy and commerce (subsidized green technologies, media ventures requiring purchase of spectrum, etc). We in California are used to seeing VC sharks trying to game the legislature for goodies (see the recent referendum that shot down subsidizes which would have greatly improved the ROI on Vinod Khosla's portfolio of green ventures).

Money's addictive. I don't think Gore cares enough about politics to invite scrutiny into the very lucrative gig he has going as a new member of the winner-take-all moneyed class.

Finally, take a shrink's view of this. While you could argue that allowing Gore to play an internal Democratic version of Justice Rehnquist would be the mother of all catharses, it's more likely that he has no wish to replay such a traumatic event. The desired payback here, for Gore, would be against a Republican, not a fellow Democrat. More likely that this traumatized pol would identify with the losing party, no? Not much upside there.

Anyway, my $0.02, and I enjoyed your column.

Best,

t

Here is one contrast: at the level of presidential poltics: Hillary is a tough, smart, gritty, incisive, fighting, never say die politician, with inner strength and plenty of moxie; Gore, who supported Howard Dean--Howard Dean for God's sakes-- last time round is a campaigning dud and a campaigning  stiff, who could not beat an inarticulate, anti intellectual, know nothing, God-privileging, inexperienced naif. Let Gore have all the honorifics he can get as he hob nobs with the swells. Win or lose, let's give Hillary her due: she is twice the campaigner he could ever be.

Yeah, dbuck .... and I figure since politicians never do anything useful anyway, they may as well amuse and entertain us...which is how I'm looking at this entire year....

...and agree with you too, tep....and I'm not totally sure but I think I'm serious this time....

peretz, again I hate to be bustn' your aged bubbles here but both Obama and Clinton have almost the same number of delegates and I don't see Obama showing any signs of stepping aside to "save the party' even though he is showing all the finishing capacity of a Duane Bobick.

You just hate the Clintons. That is what it is all about.  When I see HC today, after that gritty comback performance, I see a fighter and a tiger. You see only ambition and narcissism. When you're on the losing side, whining about naked ambition and narcissism is a self comfort, much like chocolate or a good stiff liquid restorative, but the only one you're fooling is yourself.

The brutal reality is that Obama may not be up to the full contact nature of politics. He can't close. He has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory three times!  Accept that as a reality and perhaps we will stop hearing your audible tooth grinding coming right out of my computer speakers...

Al - HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we cannot turn to you, to whom can we turn?

you got me walkin on eggshells these days, LISA

honest, tep...don't mean to....

The only way to stop them, but the how-when is also important.

They're on some sort of endorphin buzz now and may walk through fire before they ceased. Plus, the tiniest bump in Obama's lead from the next couple of states would make it easier for Gore.

So let them calm down and hope Barack is ahead of where he was on 3-4. Yes, he could do it before Mississippi and Wyoming and hope they then blow her out, but the middle of March isn't too late.

But he needs to make it BIG.

Oh, no leaking, no balloon and not an Op-Ed.

I would not give them time to react other than a too late to do much courtesy call. A hint would be asking for trouble.

They will go nuts...

Then he corrals live air time and delivers a double blow:

I.  First he has to sell the reason for a single person going to the convention. An airtight case which will be bought before he eliminates her name from Part II.

II. With his "We dare not destroy our chances..." in place he lists the reasons why Barack and only Barack is the way to avoid a catastrophe.

Sounds good to me...give him a call.

I think with Gore, especially after such a monstrous travesty as the 2000 election, it's "After this, who needs another?"  I mean, who needs the grief?  The exception is, of course, McCain.  If you can stand the Hanoi HIlton you can stand a campaign or two.

Now there's two of us.  

Here's the closer from Walter Shapiro's  "Let 'em duke it out,"  over at SALON.com.

===========================================

So rather than fantasizing about a soporific and conflict-free nomination fight, the Democrats should recognize the value of what they have stumbled into. The contest between Obama and Clinton -- this battle of historic firsts -- has the entire nation hanging on the edge of their seats. Who with any sense of show business would think of pulling down the curtain when the audience is shouting for more? But, then, if the Democrats had any sense of what the public craved, George W. Bush probably would not be in the White House.

==============================================

jaunty, you see a fighter and a tiger, I see Andrew Golata.  

And that is about the only boxing analogy I feel comfortable making.

If Gore is the nominee, I'll gladly vote for him.

I would like to see a Gore/Obama ticket.

Short of that Hillary is the best choice as far as I am concerned.

If it's Obama vs. McCain I'll probably vote for McCain if he doesn't move too far to the right.

bone

Golata? Well, he was a palooka but he lost his critical fight against...was it Tyson?

HC is winning her key fights...every one...CA OH NH TX probably PA...no analogy

Marty, how do you explain away this one?

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

Your dreaded Hillary is OVERWHELMINGLY preferred by Israelis.  My parents, who live in Israel, say everyone they meet says the same thing.  Granted, I assume it's mostly cuz they associate Hillary with her husband, who everyone in Israel loves.  Wait, but Marty hates Bill also, so how does he justify that?

jacksondyer,

let me understand this: you are OK with bringing the troops home from Iraq (Gore/Obama) and you are OK with continuing the Iraq war for the next 100 years (McCain), you are OK with universal medical coverage (Gore/Obama) and you are OK with the status quo (McCain), you are OK with repealing Bush tax cuts (Gore/Obama) and you are OK with making them permanent (McCain)... With these deeply held political views, what's the point in voting?

pdobrilla, on Iraq I am OK with a consistent policy competently carried out.

Mr. Peretz writes:  " Gore, in the 2000 election dispute, put his country before himself"

He did?  

As I recall it, Gore fought the 2000 election battle until he felt it was futile to do so.  It was hardly a case of self-sacrifice.

In fact, there's a strong argument for the idea, that Gore would have served the country better had he fought a bit harder.

whenever I see Hillary Clinton I see Walter Mondale in drag. To be fair to Hillary, I am certain she will win at least five times as many state contests as old Walter did, but considering how Walt only one won I wouldn't get too excited about it.

Obama is (imperfectly) Floyd Patterson; Hillary is  (imperfectly) Sonny Liston, with a higher i.q. Sheer heavyweight bulwark may do in lightheavy flash.

pdobrilla  I am going to side with Jackson (not as to voting for Hillary though). I am a swing voter, basically a middle of the roader, but both parties systems push up candidates who generally are not, so I am forced to essentially wing it. If there are large Democratic majorities in Congress I vote for a Republican, and vice versa. The only downside is historically this idea has run the risk of a conservative Supreme court.

I like McCains FP creds, his true coolness under pressure (far beyond all of us here), his proven ability to reach out to Dems (McCain-Kennedy, Feingold, etc.) and his fiscal conservatism (no earmarks)

I like Obama's health care plan (I hate mandates) his environmentalism, his understanding of constitutional law, his essential decency, and I will admit the post racial, transformative look of his candidacy (and it thrills me that we have an honest to God minority as President).

There is nothing in the Clinton narrative that appeals to me, marry into power (shades of Eva Peron), carpetbag to a state where you can win in the Senate, spend wildly in your reelection bid in 2006 without spreading your largesse elsewhere. Promise trillion dollar solutions in the midst of a recession and record deficits, run on experience not your own, but disavow aspects of that "experience" as not your own. And when not running on experience, run on gender.

She is our Walter Mondale, only more divisive.

jaunty, I meant Golota's penchant for hitting below the belt whenever he was losing.  

Blackton,

Hillary is my least favorite of the three remaining candidates for many of the reasons you state.  And I'm not usually one to defend her.  But is it really fair to say that she "married into power?"  

Hillary had a more socially prominent background than Bill, was a year ahead of Bill at Yale Law School, and was at least as accomplished  as Bill when they were married in 1975.

It might be nore accurate to say that her decision to STAY married was an accomodation she made with power but I'm not sure that's fair either.

citizenghost  fair enough. maybe she could have been a contender if her name was Hillary Brown. And I will be honest, if her name was Hillary Brown and she weren't running on faux White House experience but only her Senate Career I would have a much different take on her. If she would have been able to raise the kind of money she has and have the campaign she has based only on her own ability, I would be very much impressed, but we know none of that is true. She started this campaign on second base and is now only halfway to third.

Marty Peretz is a bitch.

He's caddy and selfish and shrill and has his claws out at all times against Hillary.  It's as if they once competed for Homecoming Queen and Hillary won.

It's embarrassing...

nturner, then don't read him. Why aggravate yourself? I think if you feel this way, you should be embarrassed for reading him. As to myself, he might be many things, many negative, but dishonest isn't one of them.

citizenghost, recollecting:

"As I recall it, Gore fought the 2000 election battle until he felt it was futile to do so.  It was hardly a case of self-sacrifice.

In fact, there's a strong argument for the idea, that Gore would have served the country better had he fought a bit harder."

I thought Gore bowed out gracefully rather than defy the Supreme Court's midnight madness. Matters had by then exceeded the fail-safe point of patent absurdity, and Gore, I thought rightly, decided he would not risk any more damage to the integrity of Constitutional government than had already been done.

Bush, as we know, had no such qualms. Still doesn't.

I read that Post piece.  What the hell is he talking about.  Al Gore is hardly Saint Al.  He ain't Eisenhower or Roosevelt, either.

What could Al possibly say that Hillary would give two twists of beef jerky about?  He has zero authority over her.  He was the Number Two guy, remember?  And his voodo climate films, his Oscar, and his Swedish souvenieer, aren't going to mean anything to Hillary.

Which brings us to Obama.  After essentially dissing the Boomers these last many months, is he really going to bow to a portentious speech about "the good of the Party" from the most self-righteous Boomer of them all?

I don't know where this fantasy is coming from.  But, if Al Gore is what passes for a party elder these days, the Democrats are more lame than even I thought.

blakton, apparently 8 years of Bush have not taught anything to you guys...

No matter how likable a candidate is -or is not- they all have an ideology behind them. So if you agree with what McCain represents, by all means vote for him. If you agree with what Gore/Obama/Clinton stand for, vote for whoever gets the nomination.

Otherwise, get ready to be disappointed again... A few months after re-electing Bush, 80% of American were not happy with his performance... God only knows what were they expecting!

If I parse your reply, you like McCain personally -go ahead, delude yourself that you actually know him!- but you like Obama's policies -as if they were so different from Clinton's. So, do you expect McCain to carry out Obama's policies? Get real...

ChanRobt :

Sorry for taking some liberties with your quote, but:

But, if Al Gore is what passes for a party elder these days (he is), then the Democrats (and by extension, the Obamabots) are more lame than even I thought (they are).

Jackson, "on Iraq I am OK with a consistent policy competently carried out." Just about _any_ policy, as long as competently carried out?   I'm impressed...

buffaloboy, is Hillary not a Democrat?  Stay on talking points.

Nturner, as much as you irritate the living piss out of me a lot, this:

It's as if they once competed for Homecoming Queen and Hillary won.

...was funny.  Jesus, can you imagine that High School where Marty finished second?

Oh...wait.  I just remembered Hillary and I went to the same High School.  Marty wouldn't have finished second, but, like all the others there, would also have said no to me when I asked him to a dance.  

Go Maine South!

nturner-

Marty is embarrassing? How about being phonetically spelling half-wit? When you referred to him as 'caddy', did you mean that you believe Marty to be a small storage container, a variant spelling of the person carrying a golfer's clubs, or perhaps you were employing the vernacular for an American luxury automobile. Or is it more embarrassing to be a campaign shill? Maybe you just do not like Marty or tailfins?

Hepneck,

You are correct to note my occasional spelling difficulties; I've never been one to pay much attention to homonyms after midnight.  Call me Mr. Malaprop; after all, that's a much more more apropos than "half-wit" -- something I'm absolutely not.  

However, it's you who wrote a paragraph upbraiding me for a casual spelling error.  I'm rather surprised you didn't note my disregard for the comma between two independent clauses.  

My advice:  Pull the stick out of your ass and fuck yourself with it.

tomeg writes:  

"I thought Gore bowed out gracefully rather than defy the Supreme Court's midnight madness. Matters had by then exceeded the fail-safe point of patent absurdity, and Gore, I thought rightly, decided he would not risk any more damage to the integrity of Constitutional government than had already been done."

Yes, but Gore's graceful bow out occured only after every legal means had been exhausted.  

Nobody was praising his "grace' when he was still fighting, marching into court and insisting that "every vote be counted" and all of that.  And he was right to fight.   The real difference I think is that Hillary's fight is hurting the Democrats chances in November.    

pdobrilla, I wish you would read my posts instead of parsing it. I will repeat the most important idea: I am a swing voter, basically a middle of the roader, but both parties systems push up candidates who generally are not, so I am forced to essentially wing it. If there are large Democratic majorities in Congress I vote for a Republican, and vice versa. The only downside is historically this idea has run the risk of a conservative Supreme court.

No candidate represents all of my views. And I certainly don't expect one to carry out the others. I don't know where you got that gibberish. The closest any candidate has come to my own views was Biden. One thing you guys don't learn is that swing voters are forced to go with their gut feeling in the end. HIllary makes me want to vomit so that choice is easy for me. But delude yourself that independents are going to feel the love for her ever.

As to McCain, I don't know him, but my brother in law is a high ranking Interior Department official who does. McCains brother is also a neighbor of his, so he and my sister have attended social occasions at his home, with John McCain present. If you lived in the DC area and were a high level GSer you would get to know a lot of politicos. My brother in law has attested to John McCains decency, in fact Cindy McCain was involved in a project to bring health care to pacific islanders and she worked closely with my b-i-l (he is involved with pacific island interior affairs, ie. saipan, Guam, etc.) So delude yourself if I am going to take your word over my b-i-l's

Too bad this discussion had to degenerate to "about Marty". I've always thought it's less interesting to score points by attacking personalities rather than their idea.

Anyway, Al need not be Saint Al but the options are limited.

A. Yes, Hillary can run wild and I don't believe that means she'll stop at the final primary and say,"Jeeze, I didn't catch up so I'm done."

Not telling her it's over now? It won't be easier, later. It may be more than exciting and will go on and on and the unintended consequences could be dreadful.

B. Even if Al has some baggage and isn't the ideal person to step up, that's because the party assigned that role to Mr. Hillary.

Sorry, I can't accept that any outcome of allowing B&H take it all the way is just fine w/no downside but none of the 'let it play out' people admit any risk.

Thus

Admit another someone or many someones need to mitigate their march and at least force them to accept the pledged count which no one should feel is unfair.

OR

Admit that letting H&B have it their way is very risky. Do we want to be looking back and regret that Al didn't so 'something'?

blackton, being decent is not enough of a qualification to be president. Let's assume McCain is indeed a decent person (I have no problem with that). If I do not agree with his political positions, no amount of personal decency will make me vote for him. Conversely, I would have little problems voting for somebody whose "decency" is questionable, provided that somebody carries out policies I happen to agree with.

Reading (not parsing!) your posting seems to indicate that "middle of the road" voters like you either do not care enough or cannot make up their mind as to what to care about, so they go for the most "likable" candidate.

What do you expect to accomplish by voting for a Republican President with a largely Democratic Congress, just to use your example? Maybe you expect a nice, middle of the road, mix of policies, or some carefully crafted compromises that take the "best" features of Republican and Democratic proposals? More likely than not you will get gridlock, and no clear lines of responsibility.

My bottom line is that US Presidents have an enormous power, Republican Presidents mostly carry out Republican policies, while Democratic Presidents mostly carry out Democratic policies, so I think one should vote for the candidate that most embodies the policies one would like to see enacted.

I am still blown away by your original statement that you could easily vote for a Gore/Barak ticket or, failing that, for McCain... How could you equally well vote for two very distinct set of policies? I do not think that you have clearly address this point...

pdobrilla  I never said that, Jacksondyer did. Of course I care about the policies, don't be so condescending to think I don't. I support our continued presence in Iraq and think a withdrawal would be a serious mistake, so that is for McCain. However I support Obama's health care policy as being most viable and addressing the serious problem of the uninsured in America. (I think Mandates are a poison pill that makes the plan unpassable, hence I don't trust Hillarycare version 2).

I can go position after position where I agree with McCain, such as McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, and I can do the same with Obama. Obama-Gutierrez, Patriot Employer Act of 2007, etc. some of their positions coincide, Obama supports McCain Kennedy for example.

I disagree about your ideas of divided government. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush I had a Democratic congress. (Truman has a Republican one) Say what you want about these Presidents, gridlock was not the hall mark of any of them. Even Clinton was successful under the supposedly hopelessly gridlocked Congress from 94 on. You mistake rhetoric from results. And Clinton did pass centrist policies that had wide bipartisan support, ie NAFTA. welfare reform, etc. So it is delusional to call him a Democratic partisan.

Undivided governments have often been terrible. Carter was hamstrung by Democrats, Bush II has had no restraints on him until now.

So I ask you, given history and the fact that no candidate is perfect what I should base my vote on? We have a system of checks and balances which are party based (would Nixon have been impeached with a Republican congress? I think not) so from that angle it favors McCain. However the Supreme court is now nearly majority conservative, a McCain term would push it too far to the right, so favor that for Obama.

So for me, strictly policy wise and politically, it is Obama 52 to McCain 48. But McCain 52 to Hillary 48 (mandates are symptomatic of her my way or the highway attitude, at least that is my take)

blackton, your last sentence is the crux of the matter. Based on your way of looking at the candidates, you come up with a very little spread, B:McC 52:48, McC:HRC 52:48.

My contention, and I dare to suspect the candidate themselves would back me up on this, is that a McCain administration would be extremely different, policy-wise, from a Barak or a Clinton administration, while there would be only small differences between a Barak administration and a Clinton administration.

You pick only some facets of each candidate's policies and see which one fits best, but don't you think you run the risk of overlooking the overall political posture? Let me give some examples: do you really believe that vis-a-vis Iran a McCain Presidency would act very differently from a Barak or Clinton administration? In terms on global warming, don't you think McCain would follow a different path from what Clinton or Barak would choose? I could continue, but I am sure you get my point.

To answer your question as to what should you base your vote on, my suggestion, odd as it sounds, would be to look at the platform they run on, and take it from there.... (I know, platforms are not always and entirely followed, but they do give you a general picture of what each candidate will try to push for)

pdobrilla, I gotcha. I know the difference between me and many swing voters is that many swing voters base it on who they like best, so that is an issue that is pretty damn hard for non likeable people.

I am bothered lately by how diffident Obama has been. Though i think the demographics in Ohio and Texas were against him, he has not fought back anywhere enough. So character does become an issue. Obama is trying to rise above it, but that is foolish. Maybe he is just not ready. Hillary might be ready, but her political posturing is just too partisan for me. McCain has at least shown he can work with Democrats.

I do agree that an Obama and Clinton adminstration would be similar (ie. both a bit of a disaster) as would a McCain one. I have said before, this is like choosing the Captain of the titanic after it has hit the iceberg, so I think whoever wins loses and will be a one termer.

quiz:

Who just wrote these true true true words:

"As the trench warfare stretches on through the spring, the excitement of Obama-mania will seem like a distant, childish mirage. People will wonder if Obama ever believed any of that stuff himself. And even if he goes on to win the nomination, he won’t represent anything new. He’ll just be a one-term senator running for president.

In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him.

Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.

If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway."

I don't know, basman, WHO did write those words about Obama and trench warfare?  You?  If so, they're very good.  And you're very right.

David Brooks a few days ago.

I should only be able to write that trenchantly.