Stark Ravings

Gore fest

By STEVEN STARK | April 24, 2008

Third, a bloc of superdelegates would have to declare for the putative candidate. Again, this isn’t impossible. There are about 25 Edwards delegates still out there that might be persuaded by Edwards himself — so that’s a start. Plus, there are enough horrified and disgruntled party elders who would welcome an alternative, if they thought they wouldn’t be making fools of themselves by going out on a limb for a candidate with no chance of being successful.

Finally, a Gore draft would eventually need the support of either Bill or Hillary. While the Clinton effort has begun to succeed in its argument that Obama has major weaknesses, it is time for its principals to realize that Hillary is never going to succeed in the camp’s second necessary argument: that she should be the alternative. She’s never going to catch Obama in the elected delegate count. And her initial high poll negatives (that have never been reduced) — combined with the way she has alienated Obama’s supporters — make her now an almost certain loser in November.

So, if she and Bill care about the party and nation and truly believe that Obama is unelectable — an unpopular but defensible argument — they have, really, only two choices. They can throw in with an effort to draft their former protégé. (A Gore and Newark mayor Cory Booker ticket?) Or they can continue to indulge their illusions and send their party hurtling toward disaster.

ODDS
REPUBLICANS
JOHN MCCAIN
The nominee

DEMOCRATS
BARACK OBAMA
Odds: 1-5 | past week: same
HILLARY CLINTON
Odds: 5-1 | same

DELEGATE COUNT
BARACK OBAMA
Pledged: 1479
Superdelegates: 234
Total: 1713
Short by: 311

HILLARY CLINTON
Pledged: 1328
Superdelegates: 258
Total: 1586
Short by: 438

Delegates needed to win: 2024
SOURCE: REAL CLEAR POLITICS AS OF 4/23/08

On the Web
The Presidential Tote Board Blog: http://www.thephoenix.com/toteboard

< prev 1 | 2 |

Related: Let the horse race begin, See spot run, Damn you, Barack Obama, More

Topics: Stark Ravings , Barack Obama, Election Campaigns, Elections and Voting, More

Comments

Gore fest

This sounds like the idea of someone who has spent too much time as a Washington insider: Mr Stark, you are a subtle scholar, as critical a thinker, very likely, in ways, as Obama himself. But choosing Gore over the latter would be like choosing Michelob over Sam Adams--better than the swill that Clinton is offering us--and without the hangover of McCain's Bud, but let's order the best. Always a good decision.

By gordon on 04/23/2008 at 10:08:46

Gore fest

WELCOME BACK! Why on earth would Albert Arnold place his Nobel Prize, his Oscar and his Emmy on the shelf for the dubious distinction of re-entering the political mud wrestling pit and being sneeringly referred to as "Ozone Man"? Gore is in the stratified atmosphere of being "above it all" and his environmental work would look compromised were he again a partisan political candidate. Also, in June 2006, Gore indicated he would not run in 2008. Not to mention money. Hillary and Barack have burned through around $450 Million, leaving little lucre for Al. Lastly, why would a Hillary or Barack supporter switch to Gore, an outside observer and non-participant in the present contest. Ain't no love lost between Hillary and Al as she constantly usurped his power during the Clinton presidency. (Obama followers take note, lest you promote an Obama-Clinton ticket). My guess is, should the Democrats lose in 2008, then pressure picks up appreciably to have Gore run in 2012.

By L-J on 04/24/2008 at 9:05:38

Gore fest

Note to GORDON: Hey, slick! What a subtle reference to Cindy McCain's family owning the biggest Budweiser distributorship in the known solar system. Cool, 'bro! So-o-o-o-o, we take our pick. Barack's "wine-and-brie" (see Toteboard's massive archives) against Hillary's "burgers-and-boilermakers." Did she really up-chuck after the photo was snapped? Just a-funnin'.

By L-J on 04/24/2008 at 9:15:37

Gore fest

Steve...Dude, I'd like some of whatever you're smoking, because this analysis (if, by 'analysis,' we mean random half-thoughts and a complete lack of references or evidence to support them) is as fucked up as anything I've read about this primary to date. Do they actually pay you for this? Let's just say that I don't buy your scenario. We've got two strong candidates still in the race, but the numbers are starting to speak more clearly - Hillary's chances for the nomination grow ever dimmer both because of the math, and because the overall party hierarchy does NOT favor the kind of floor fight you fear. I'm looking for a steady stream of supers announcing for Obama after Indiana and NC, with him hitting his number in June. Hey, maybe I'm also smoking crack and have this entirely wrong. At least my mind-altering substances aren't buried in a Phoenix expense account. RubDMC

By RubDMC on 04/25/2008 at 7:59:15

Gore fest

The role of John Edwards may be a critical factor in the N.C. primary. John Edwards, anyone? Anyhoo, Edwards rang up 56 pledged delegates before withdrawing from the race. He has yet to endorse anyone and has not released his delegates.

By L-J on 04/25/2008 at 2:55:36

Gore fest

Clinton's new challenge is an honest won. Obama should do his homework and take it. A Lincoln-Douglas style debate would, in all likelihood, demonstrate the worthy candidates they both are, and obviate the need for blood and Gore.

By gordon on 04/26/2008 at 5:50:57

Gore fest

On second thought, no. Don't do it Obama. You've already been tried. It's as unconstitutional in practice as it is in conscience and intent--trickery and treachery...a simple duel with pistols would be more noble and true to the idea of Americana Clinton is pushing.

By gordon on 04/27/2008 at 1:23:04

Gore fest

Steve - Oh but that it could happen - one can only pray for it. Could Al possibly be drafted without the Clintons' support? They'd never go for it. I have no choice in November but to write in Al Gore's name, my only choice. A wasted vote but at least a choice, which I do not have now. Thanks for the uplifting column. It gave me hope. I agree with L-J, Gore is "above it all" now, but our political system could afford a good uplifting, and he's the guy who can do it. How can we start a draft?? Bettyboop hoping.

By Bettyboop on 04/27/2008 at 6:42:49

Gore fest

Concerned about these "super delegates" making their "pledges." To be sure, many if not most are quite sincere in committing to either Clinton or Obama. But "superdelegates" are not required to actually cast their votes until the Democratic Convention in Denver in late August when all delegations vote. DNC Chairman Dean has indicated he wants the "superdelates" to either be polled or have them actually cast their votes before July 1 so the nominee is determined. Whether the vote be taken at the August convention or Dean's July 1 date, their "pledge" may - may - be subject to change between now and then. I'm not looking to create any anxiety or cast doubt here but I am pointing out that delegates that are awarded through the primaries and caucuses themselves ---- not any "superdelegates" ---- are all that any candidate can rely on.

By L-J on 04/27/2008 at 5:01:57

Gore fest

Why do the Dems always turn to Al Gore instead of John Kerry? I hope somebody answers that before the election in November.

By Krogy on 04/28/2008 at 11:40:12

Gore fest

I would be cool with Kerry.

By gordon on 04/29/2008 at 12:51:24

Gore fest

REPLY to KROGY...seems that Al Gore was the one that got away while John Kerry was the one who had a tough time getting in...Democrats seem to specialize in disposal candidates. "One and done" is the guiding principle as prez candidates get but one bite of the apple. McGovern, 1972 nominee, was forgotten in 1976. Carter, having lost in 1980, was gone by 1984. Whatever happened to 1984's dynamic primary duo of Mondale and Hart? Gone in '88. Dukakis, 1988 nominee, was forgotten when 1992 rolled around. Kerry, IMO, was driven out of the 2008 presidential sweepstakes after he made some lame joke about failing in college or whatever made you a candidate for Iraq. (This from a decorated Vietnam vet?). The party elders' reaction to the humor was disproportionate to the joke itself. They - whoever they are - wanted Kerry outtathere. The Republicans, though, seem to specialize in political resurrections such as one John McCain. Not to mention Richard Nixon's return in 1968 after his 1960 loss. I had no problem with Gore and am still bothered by those who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 because they didn't like Al Gore. I'd reply that they helped elect George W. Bush. "Oh, I don't like him either" would come the response.

By L-J on 04/29/2008 at 4:51:57

Gore fest

The Democrats are like rookie Marketing majors fresh out of college, always pushing the flavor of the month. They lack the courage of their convictions. They believe what the opposition tells them. If Obama doesn't make it, he will start to believe that he really does have no substance. If Clinton doesn't make it, she'll think she really is an offensive opportunist, instead of a conflicted idealist/realist with a style that's a little off-putting. Whoever makes it, we have to tell the other one we'll be behind him or her eight years from now. We've still got a black mark against us until we have had both a black and a woman president, and these two are intelligent.

By gordon on 04/29/2008 at 10:26:23

Gore fest

Does anybody remember the gubinatorial race between Ed King and Francis Hatch in 1978? Well, King won by defining himself as the "can do" candidate, while his opponent was the cannot do" one. Clinton is the "can do" candidate in this run-off, precisely because she, like King in that one, is the less circumspect. She can set out plans for health care and education and give people hope, while Obama is tied up in his Hamlet complex of putting all his energy into thought--trying to hard to measure how doable everything is...It is the difference, in literary theorist Paul de Man's conception, between adhering to what is "true," and what is "right." To do what is right, we have to lie, which is why Clinton lies. That is, we have to tell ourselves lies to get anything done. If Obama loses Indiana, which it looks like he will, he may best follow Clinton, become her running mate, and learn how to make blind promises. Not all of them will be kept, but if no promises are made, NO promises will be kept.

By gordon on 04/29/2008 at 11:21:27

Gore fest

Perhaps we could put in place a Soviet "troika" in the election. We'd combine Obama's inspiration with Clinton's attention to detail and McCain's drive and determination. Failing that, perhaps a personality transplant from Barack to Hillary.

By L-J on 04/30/2008 at 8:34:00

Gore fest

The degree of manipulation going on in this election is unbelievable, and Gore has been campaigning all along to become the "draft" candidate. If he was the "strongest" contender, as has been suggested, why didn't he run in the first place? For more on who's doing what to whom, and how this will all end, check out an article at thecityedition.com. Here's a direct link: http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

By YRM on 05/01/2008 at 12:25:09

Gore fest

Memo to GORDON. Another interesting scenario about the 1978 Massachusetts contest was that of incumbent Gov. Michael Dukakis assuming that he would be the inevitable nominee. Shades of Hillary, huh? Dukakis saved the state in the blizzard of '78 and would, of course, roll over "MassPort" King. Also, Cambridge Mayor Barbara Ackermann entered the primary, claiming that Dukakis was not liberal enough. Shades of Nader in 2000, huh? Frank Hatch was a liberal Republican (google it if you must) with about as much charisma as Dukakis. The most regrettable outcome was that the state Dept. of Social Services (DSS) was then forming and came into existence in 1981 under a governor - - King - - who didn't give much of a tinker's damn about social services.

By L-J on 05/11/2008 at 5:39:45

Gore fest

AddenDUMB to above. Ackermann got around 5% of the primary vote, thereby making King the winnah. King, in his acceptance speech, called it a victory for capital punishment and the right to life movement. Gotta hand it to the conservative Republicans. They stick together behind their candidates. Liberal Democrats may agree on 90% of something and will easily form factions and divisions among the remaining 10%.

By L-J on 05/11/2008 at 5:45:03

Add a Comment

Today's Event Picks

[FILM] John Cassavetes and Peter Falk

Plus 4 more >>

ARTICLES BY STEVEN STARK

HAS OBAMA PEAKED? YES, HE HAS | November 12, 2009
To listen to some pundits, Barack Obama's public image began taking a serious beating when the off-year election returns came in a week ago. Or maybe it was the undeserved Nobel Prize, his approach to the war in Afghanistan, or when he revved up his pursuit of national health-care reform.

MEN PLUS MONEY EQUALS MESS | May 14, 2009
Since Iceland is something of the epicenter of the global financial crisis — its government being the first to essentially go belly up — it's probably not surprising that the Icelanders have come up with the most novel and interesting theory as to what caused the meltdown. And they may be right.

ARLEN THE FAMILY | May 11, 2009
So, Arlen Specter is now a Democrat. That's old news.

SPARE CHANGE? | April 28, 2009
A tension lies at the heart of the Obama presidency. After 100 days in office, the public still seems uncertain how to interpret the historic nature of the election last November.

COURTHOUSE MARRIAGE | April 21, 2009
While political analysts understandably regard elections and politicians as the key forces of social change, nongovernmental forces are the ones that most often actually influence and transform our culture.

See all articles by: STEVEN STARK

Stark Ravings

Gore fest

Men plus money equals mess

Arlen the Family

Spare Change?

Man bites newspaper

Blue Balls