In order for the Democrats to have a shot at the White House in 2004, I think one of two things is going to have to happen. Either Al Gore doesn't run, or the Democratic leadership gets four-square behind him.
The sense I get is that the Democratic leadership is not particularly keen on Al Gore. Many of them are planning to run themselves. They don't think Gore's swing to populism is productive. They think 2000 was his to lose, and since he lost it, that means he's a loser.
But the other sense I get is that the Democratic rank and file are big fans of Al Gore. We think he got robbed in Florida, robbed of the Presidency. We liked his populism. (And are correspondingly disgruntled to find out that Senator Lieberman is a big ol' corporate whore, just like his buddies across the aisle.) Many of us even liked Al's beard! And we want revenge for 2000.
If there's a fight for the nomination, the Democrats are going to spend nine months ripping each other apart, and whether it's Al Gore or John Kerrey or whoever that emerges from the wreckage, the Republicans are going to have nine months' worth of weaponry to use against him between Labor Day and Election Day.
Now, I could be wrong. George W. Bush was anointed as his party's candidate in 2000, but the Republican leadership was surprised when it had to mobilize to get George nominated against John McCain. That fight didn't seem to hurt George too much. However, I think there's little doubt among sensible people that George pretty much got a free ride from the media in 2000. That went a long way towards armoring George against wounds McCain could inflict.
Did Al Gore's primary fight with Bill Bradley hurt him? It's hard to tell. Al Gore was assaulted before and throughout the campaign. Bush echoed some themes from Bradley (e.g. health care numbers) in his debates with Gore, but Al's damage mostly arose from other directions, as widely documented in the leftist press.
Bradley's campaign's viability came about from some fraction of the leadership's belief in 2000 that Gore wasn't a viable candidate--Clinton damage and media perception. But Gore was an incumbent VP in a time of great prosperity; there was little chance of his not getting the nomination. In 2004, Gore's only an incumbent as a candidate. That's not a worthless incumbency, particularly given the recession that followed the prosperity to which he can lay claim, but it does make it easier for candidates to oppose him.
I think the Democrats need to go in with a consensus candidate from the git-go. I personally think it oughta be Al Gore, but as long as it's one somebody, focused from the beginning on beating Bush in the fall, the Democrats have a chance. Don't fight two battles when only one counts.
Posted by Greg at August 26, 2002 1:34 PM