Al Gore Support Center's 2008 Strategy
By: James Aquila and Chris D. Jackson
I've been reading and hearing all the post mortems in the media about "What the Democrats did wrong" and "What the Democrats need to do next." Most of the points made have been valid but we shouldn't panic as the creators of this spin would want us to. Instead we should focus on the facts in the situation.
First, Bush won with one of the smallest margins of any incumbent President in history. He earned no mandate. We should not be discouraged. If not for right-wing evangelicals who came out in record numbers this year, Bush would have lost. And it is unlikely they'll come out again for any of the current leaders in GOP field.
Second, right now the MoveOn wing of the party is blaming the DLC wing while the DLC wing is blaming the Move On wing. Nothing could be more harmful right now to our party. There's an old saying, "When Democrats circle the wagons, they shoot inwards." That can't happen this time. We need both wings of the party to win in 2008. And remember Kerry, a northeaster liberal, was in no way the first choice of the DLC. Candidates like Lieberman, Clark, Gephardt and even Edwards were all ahead of Kerry in the eyes of most moderates. Nor was Kerry the first choice of the left, Dean was. So neither wing can fully be blamed for the loss this year. However, we must admit our mistakes and move forward in unity.
Third, we need to educate ourselves on how the party and the party leadership really works otherwise we come off as a lunatic fringe party making arguments that have no foundation in fact and thus no credibility. A while back I was discussing the DNC with someone and they insisted every Democratic Representative and Senator was a member of the DNC. Nothing could be further from the truth. The DNC is made up mainly of state party officials and only a handful of Representatives and Senators. If anyone is interested in how the DNC is really made up you can read about it here.
Fourth, we need to recognize there is a lot of misinformation out there in the mass-media and learn to separate fact from fiction. Nothing angers me more than seeing a pundit or columnist who trashed Gore with lies being quoted by a Gore supporter because now their trashing someone we don't like. I don't care what bad things Maureen Dowd writes about George W. Bush, she's lost all her credibility with her attacks on Gore. Nor do I care what Bob Novak or Rush Limbaugh have to say, they are proven liars. It is just moral relativism to denounce someone when they are attacking people you like to then turn around and embrace them when they are attacking someone you don't like. The right wing propaganda machine feeds on validating people's preconceived bias and then repeating each others lies enough times that everyone thinks it's the truth. We need to look thoughtfully at who is saying what and try to verify it with trusted sources. Case in point, everyone assumes Hillary Clinton will be running in 2008 but as this article in Slate shows that has been mainly manufactured by right-wing pundits such as Dick Morris.
All of the above be translated into positive action that will have impact on 2008.
The DNC - We need to find out who Gore supports for DNC chairman and back that person by calling & writing our state DNC members to support that person too. The DNC meets in December to choose new leadership. We all need to find out who our state representatives are ASAP and start lobbying those people. Send them emails, letters, go to town hall meetings, or do whatever you can to persuade them to support Gore's choice for party leader.
Message - This problem is twofold. For too long we've allowed the GOP and their puppets in the media define us. Read the second item from Saturday's Daily Howler. That illustrates this problem better than anything else I've read recently. Conservatives knew they couldn't win the debate so they moved the game. Now it is time we moved the game back. We have to all act as truth squads combating right-wing misinformation where ever we see it. There just aren't enough Joe Conasan's and Eric Alterman's to do that. Whenever we see this misinformation in the newspaper or on TV we need to respond immediately with emails, calls and letters to the editors. We need to build up a network of people that will spring into action whenever needed. The Al Gore Support Center and MoveOn have each partially started this kind of effort. Additionally, the Democratic party needs to clearly define its message. We all saw the role 'moral values' played in this election. Well, tolerance is a moral value, wanting corporate accountability and fair wages to all workers is a moral value, being against the death penalty and war is a moral value, wanting good health care and an education to all children is a moral value, being for the average working man or woman over CEOs is a moral value. Even separation of church and state is a moral value. Wasn't it Christ who said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God?" These are issues that need to be addressed simply and in the proper context to resonate with ordinary middle America.
GOP Candidates in 2008
Jeb Bush - He's the most logical choice. He's also one of the reasons I think Cheney was made VP so there would be no heir apparent other than Jeb. But will the Christian right come out for him the way they did for his brother? I don't think so. Jeb is a converted Catholic and evangelicals don't like or trust Catholics.
Rudy Giuliani - He is also a Catholic. He's also a liberal on many issues including abortion and gay rights. Plus he tends to be a nasty candidate. While that worked in NYC it may not play as well in the heartland. Not to mention, many would raise his experience, or lack there of.
John McCain - A war hero and moderate who won't ignite the base of the Christian right. In recent years McCain has made a number of his party members mad over criticisms aimed at the Bush Administration.
Chuck Hagel - Like McCain, Hagel is a war hero and a moderate senator who has been harsh on the Bush Administration. In the end he may just be too moderate for some radical righties.
Rick Santorum and/or Bill Frist - Both are hardliner conservatives however both can also be perceived to be Washington insiders. Nevertheless, if the current conservative, moral vibe continues, they would be the air apparent to George W. Bush.
An unknown Republican Governor - Just as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter came from out of nowhere the same may happen here. Pataki of New York is spoken about but he has the same problems as Rudy.
Dem. Candidates in 2008
Hillary Clinton - While she is now being called the front-runner as shown above most of that is from the right. She may have a hard re-election campaign in 2006 and may even have to pledge not to run in '08. Plus she is such a divisive figure it is unlikely she'll win any red states that Kerry didn't.
Joe Biden - Would be a great candidate and a great President. But might be tagged with the northeast liberal label and Washington insider label as well. Like Kerry he'll have a voting record in the Senate that can be twisted against him.
Evan Bayh - A moderate left leaning Democrat from the heartland. He was on Gore's shortlist four years ago and will now have been in the Senate for nine years in 2008. He would appeal to many swing voters but not many Deaniacs.
John Edwards - Losing VP candidates rarely come back to win the nomination next time out. Mondale was the last one and that turned out to be a disaster. Plus he will have been out of a job for four years in 2008 and still have only six years of experience.
Howard Dean - Fairly or unfairly he's defined by the infamous 'Dean scream'. In the south he'll be seen as another north eastern liberal and real liberals will look at his record as Governor & see that he was way too far to the right.
An unknown Democratic Governor - Same as above. Bill Richardson has been mentioned as have Vilsack of Iowa and Easley of North Carolina. But they are all moderates who may not ignite the liberal wing of the party. However, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell may be a surprise candidate in 2008.
Al Gore - It has been said he was a bad candidate in 2000 but let's look at some facts:
» He was behind Bush by double digits in the polls 18 months before the election.
» He was seen as too moderate by many on the left who then voted for Nader.
» He was outspent by Bush 2 to 1 overall and 3 to 1 in some key areas.
» The media was continually hostile to him throughout the campaign.
» He had all of Clinton's baggage to contend with.
Yet despite all that he won the popular vote and would have won the election if all the votes in Florida had been counted. Not such a bad candidate after all. Plus Gore being a founding member of the DLC along with getting his liberal 'street cred' from his association with Move On may be the only person that can unite the two wings of the party. Christian evangelicals may not see him as the enemy they see Kerry or Dean or Hillary being. Not that they'd vote for him but they may not turn out to vote against him particularly if the GOP puts up McCain or Rudy. There are many in the DNC that really wanted Gore to run this time out. They may still support him in '08. Plus there are millions of Americas that see Gore as the guy who got screwed in 2000 and would vote for him again in a heartbeat. Of course Gore has to want it. If he doesn't then trying a Draft is just futile. We need to organize and let him know that there are many of us who want him to run and do whatever we can to see him win.
