According to a
New York Times article, we Democrats do not forgive a candidate for running for President and losing. They use the last two presidential candidates as examples, and contrast them with the likes of Bob Dole.
Of Gore, they say:
Mr. Gore -- the former vice president, would-be president, almost-president and, in some circles, should-be president -- did a hilarious turn on "Saturday Night Live" last weekend. He has received continued plaudits in liberal journals and blogs for his staunch opposition to the Iraq war and good reviews for his documentary about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." He attended an opening for the film here last Wednesday amid raves about how at ease this latest version of the "new Al Gore" appears, in addition to the requisite "Gore in '08" buzzing among the Washington smartypants set.
If Mr. Gore runs for president again -- and he says he won't, though not quite definitively -- he would come rested, battle-tested and, given how Democrats have treated their losing nominees, deeply stigmatized.
I, for one, would love to see Gore run for President again in 2008. I don't consider him "tainted" by the 2000 election, though I think he should have put up more opposition to "Bush v. Gore" since the votes never DID get counted. Gore has over the past 6 years delivered several important speeches that the mainstream press hasn't even bothered to cover. For the Times, covering a Gore speech isn't "news," but reporting that he's "stigmatized" is. Old Grey Lady, your bias is showing.
On Kerry
"Maybe the Republicans know something that we don't," Senator John Kerry said, referring to Mr. Nixon's comeback win during an appearance earlier this year on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos."
...
Could it be changing for Mr. Kerry, too? Unlike Mr. Gore, Mr. Kerry had the benefit -- or curse -- of a high-profile Washington job to return to. Earlier this year, GQ published an unflattering profile of Mr. Kerry that relied heavily on anonymous quotes from former staffers and Beltway Democrats portraying him as a scorned and pitiable figure. The article was e-mailed with a measure of unrestrained glee around Democratic offices on Capitol Hill.
"The bitterness towards Kerry is much greater from the chattering classes in Washington," said Michael D. McCurry, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry during his 2004 presidential campaign. Mr. McCurry posits the example of his father, a Democratic activist in South Carolina, who still admires Mr. Kerry and resents the ridicule that's been heaped on him by onetime loyalists. Mr. Kerry's current staff is quick to share news of the large turnouts and ebullient receptions the senator is getting as he travels the country, exploring another run in 2008.
The thing the Republicans know that Senator Kerry doesn't is how to run an effective campaign. Kerry said in the Democratic National Convention that "Help is On the Way" and then disappeared until the debates. The Republicans didn't stop campaigning in that time, nor did they stop slamming Kerry. But he did not respond.
At the debates, President Bush acted very strangely, waiting 3-5 seconds after each question he was asked before he started answering. He also appeared to have a large "transmitter-looking" box strapped to his back. Kerry was 5 feet away, but didn't ask a single question about Bush's mysterious "bulge." He also failed to ask about "Abu Grahib," even once call President Bush anything remotely close to a liar, and when asked a question about homosexuals, quickly threw out the fact that Cheney's daughter was a lesbian, like that was an answer. In debate 3, Bush "accused" Kerry of being "for" the International Criminal Court, saying Kerry thought it would be a good thing if US soldiers would be able to be prosecuted for war crimes. Kerry just stood there impotently, instead of rebutting, "if they are committing war crimes, they should be prosecuted."
In short, Kerry is stigmatized because he was a bad candidate. 2004 was his for the taking, it was probably harder to loose than it was to win, but Kerry succeeded. If Kerry is exploring another run in 2008, I hope he gets lost in the jungle.
(I'll also add while the New York Times and the rest of the media was stigmatizing Howard Dean about a BS "scream," Kerry didn't stand up for a fellow Dem and say he was being treated unfairly by the press. And how is Howard Dean's career doing, NYT? He got a promotion... where's the stigma there?)
The Howard Dean bit is a good segue for the bit in the story about Bob Dole:
This contrasts with Republicans, who have admittedly had fewer runners-up in recent decades but who nonetheless accord them a more respectful, eminent status. Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton in 1996, but has retained an elder statesman's role within the party. Barry Goldwater lost 44 states to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 yet remains a conservative icon. Richard M. Nixon lost narrowly in 1960 and went on to be elected president in 1968.
I'll grant them the Republicans treated Dole like a statesman, even as he drooled at a then-jailbait Brittney Speers in a Pepsi commercial, patting his dog and saying "down boy" while creepily reminding everyone that he was Viagra's elder statesman, too.
But what about our elder statesman who've run for President? Jimmy Carter ran against Reagan and lost in 1980, he went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize.
Gary Hart was running in 1988 when scandal caught up with him. If Hart was stigmatized, what was he doing at the head of this comittee?
In 1998, President Bill Clinton named Hart to a bipartisan commission charged with studying America's defense against terrorism. The commission announced its findings in January 2001, warning that America was dangerously vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and recommending establishment of a new, cabinet-level National Homeland Security Agency. The commission's multi-million-dollar report was, of course, widely ignored until September of 2001.
I'm sorry, but I don't trust the NYT to cover the pulse of the Democratic Party whatsoever. On the other hand, I do trust them to try to make us look weak and divided at every turn.
And I know, I'm not a Kerry fan and said so here. I brought that up to show why I'm not a Kerry fan--it's not that he'd run and lost, it was his actions while he was running. I didn't like Kerry while he was running, I'm still not a fan now. Big difference from what the article was implying.