![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thatcrazycajunMy friend (redaxe), in an exchange on Tom Smith (filkertom)'s LJ page re the approval (at long, long last) of the emergency contraceptive Plan B for over-the-counter purchase by adults 18 and over, got me into a discussion of the Democratic Party's prospects for a Presidential candidate in 2008. He seems to feel that former U.S. Senator, Vice President and spectacularly failed 2000 nominee Al Gore could try again in '08 and actually win, largely on the strength of his presentation in the much-lauded new documentary film An Inconvenient Truth. I have maintained since December of 2000 that Gore cost himself the election far more than Ralph Nader or anyone else did, by his repeated image makeovers, his lack of charisma and passion on the stump and his choice of "Holy Joe" Lieberman as a running mate, among many other failings. I posited that in the age of televised coronations masquerading as party conventions and sound-bite/attack-ad fusillades posing as campaigns, Presidential elections (all elections, really) are much more won by the one who can rouse the non-voting, apathetic masses from their slumber (we still have a voting-eligible population the vast majority of which can't even be bothered to register, much less show up at the polls on Election Day, and that majority grows every cycle) than by the one with the best ideas.
(And before you ask, yes, I have seen the movie and I stand by my assessment; nothing I saw convinced me that outside of the helpful influence of a friendly filmed audience and a skilled director and cinematographer, Gore could do any better than he did the first time. The only time in the whole film he showed any genuine emotion was when talking about his kid in the hospital; otherwise, he makes Ben "Bueller?" Stein look exciting and dynamic.)
I suggested that a much better choice than Gore (who couldn't even get his fellow Tennesseans to vote for him in sufficient numbers to beat Bush in his home state) or Sen. Hillary Clinton (who arouses spittle-spewing hatred in fully half the country like no Democrat I've seen since FDR or...well, her husband) would be someone like freshman Sen. Barack Obama, who electrified the party's 2004 Boston convention attendees in his keynote address as no one has since Gov. Mario Cuomo (NY) two decades earlier. My pal seems to consider Obama a "panderer" who "lacks the courage of his convictions." I can't find anything in the media or hs history as outlined on Wikipedia to indicate either of these characteristics. Indeed, he has stood on principle numerous times in his first term, and is holding firm in his refusal to consider running for President himself in '08 despite the blandishments of an awful lot of influential fellow Dems who think he could win. That doesn't sound to me like a lack of conviction.
Anyhoo, it seems to me the discussion has gotten involved enough that we should let Tom have his page back and move it here. What do y'all think? Is my friend right about Obama? Who do YOU think should be the Democratic Presidential candidate in '08? Who do you think absolutely should not? Whom do you think the nominee will face on the GOP side? Redaxe suggests that rocker Bruce Springsteen or comedian Jon Stewart would be able to hit people where they live hard enough to get them to vote for him. I'd vote for the Boss in a hot picosecond, though I'm not sure the Daily Show host has enough gravitas (he is a comedian, after all). Let's have at it!
redaxe), in an exchange on Tom Smith (filkertom)'s LJ page re the approval (at long, long last) of the emergency contraceptive Plan B for over-the-counter purchase by adults 18 and over, got me into a discussion of the Democratic Party's prospects for a Presidential candidate in 2008. He seems to feel that former U.S. Senator, Vice President and spectacularly failed 2000 nominee Al Gore could try again in '08 and actually win, largely on the strength of his presentation in the much-lauded new documentary film An Inconvenient Truth. I have maintained since December of 2000 that Gore cost himself the election far more than Ralph Nader or anyone else did, by his repeated image makeovers, his lack of charisma and passion on the stump and his choice of "Holy Joe" Lieberman as a running mate, among many other failings. I posited that in the age of televised coronations masquerading as party conventions and sound-bite/attack-ad fusillades posing as campaigns, Presidential elections (all elections, really) are much more won by the one who can rouse the non-voting, apathetic masses from their slumber (we still have a voting-eligible population the vast majority of which can't even be bothered to register, much less show up at the polls on Election Day, and that majority grows every cycle) than by the one with the best ideas. (And before you ask, yes, I have seen the movie and I stand by my assessment; nothing I saw convinced me that outside of the helpful influence of a friendly filmed audience and a skilled director and cinematographer, Gore could do any better than he did the first time. The only time in the whole film he showed any genuine emotion was when talking about his kid in the hospital; otherwise, he makes Ben "Bueller?" Stein look exciting and dynamic.)
I suggested that a much better choice than Gore (who couldn't even get his fellow Tennesseans to vote for him in sufficient numbers to beat Bush in his home state) or Sen. Hillary Clinton (who arouses spittle-spewing hatred in fully half the country like no Democrat I've seen since FDR or...well, her husband) would be someone like freshman Sen. Barack Obama, who electrified the party's 2004 Boston convention attendees in his keynote address as no one has since Gov. Mario Cuomo (NY) two decades earlier. My pal seems to consider Obama a "panderer" who "lacks the courage of his convictions." I can't find anything in the media or hs history as outlined on Wikipedia to indicate either of these characteristics. Indeed, he has stood on principle numerous times in his first term, and is holding firm in his refusal to consider running for President himself in '08 despite the blandishments of an awful lot of influential fellow Dems who think he could win. That doesn't sound to me like a lack of conviction.
Anyhoo, it seems to me the discussion has gotten involved enough that we should let Tom have his page back and move it here. What do y'all think? Is my friend right about Obama? Who do YOU think should be the Democratic Presidential candidate in '08? Who do you think absolutely should not? Whom do you think the nominee will face on the GOP side? Redaxe suggests that rocker Bruce Springsteen or comedian Jon Stewart would be able to hit people where they live hard enough to get them to vote for him. I'd vote for the Boss in a hot picosecond, though I'm not sure the Daily Show host has enough gravitas (he is a comedian, after all). Let's have at it!