Friday’s political round-up

February 9, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* On CBS’s Early Show this morning, Harry Smith asked Al Gore if he could better create change on the issue of global warming from inside the White House. Gore said that he “worked in the White House for 8 years” and learned that what is needed more than anything else to move the issue forward is to change public opinion and that is what his current campaign is all about. Gore did not respond to a question about whether or not he intends to announce a presidential campaign at the Oscars.

* The first presidential candidate forum is, believe it or not, just 12 days away, when AFSCME and the Nevada Democratic Party host an event for the candidates in Carson City, Nev., on Feb. 21. Barack Obama announced yesterday that he will not participate, though seven other announced or expected Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, will be there.

* State law in New Mexico prohibits public officials from raising money during the state legislative session, which posed a problem for Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign. Yesterday, the New Mexico attorney general issued an opinion saying the state law does not apply to Richardson in this case, because he’s seeking national office.

* The WaPo noted today that the 2008 race will be the first in 80 years in which White House officials play no role whatsoever. Craig Fuller, Bush 41’s chief of staff during the 1988 campaign, said, “It creates a fundamentally different situation than we’ve known in the past. What’s so starkly different about this situation is that not only is the president, by virtue of the calendar, a lame duck, but there’s no champion out there on the field for him.”

* Rush Limbaugh is reportedly under pressure from some of his followers to support Sen. Sam Brownback for president, because he’s more conservative than the frontrunners. Limbaugh said yesterday, “Look, Brownback is out there on the wrong side of the anti-war resolution. He’s doing some things here that have me scratching my head. He’s not a thoroughbred conservative, like I think he once was.”

* And vicious right-wing talk-show host Michael Savage is reportedly mulling a presidential campaign, presumably as some kind of publicity stunt.

…Vermont Democratic Party host an event for the candidates in Carson City, Nev…

why is the Vermont Democratic Party hosting an event in Nevada? What am I missing?

  • I’m pretty supportive of the idea of Gore getting in the race, but I think he’d be a fool to do it at the Oscars. There’s no hurry–he’s freakin’ Al Gore; he’s got gravitas and the national network of backers and the reservoir of goodwill among netroots activists that all the other candidates can only dream of–and he doesn’t want to look like an opportunist.

    If he wins, which people are regarding as a given (and maybe they’re right, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a lock), he should use his time on stage to say that while the honor and recognition and little gold statue are nice, his priority is raising awareness of this issue and pushing for a policy response. This is Gore’s passion; his unwillingness to embrace it IMO is one (among many) reason that he didn’t win convincingly enough in 2000 to prevent the theft. He needs to stay “above the fray” for as long as he can, if he wants to get in at all.

  • why is the Vermont Democratic Party hosting an event in Nevada?

    Good question. The answer: they’re not. It’s one my more unusual typos. It’s fixed.

  • Vermont is always on the mind, CB? 🙂

    Dajafi, the only problem with Gore waiting much longer is big donors will be locked up by Clinton or Obama. While some would break, many will feel honor bound to stay with their initial commitments. While Gore has many other strengths, there is a level of financial competitiveness that anyone, even Gore, needs to maintain.

    (That said, there is no way he should use the Oscars to announce, or anything even close.)

  • Every time Al Gore refuses to say he’s running or not, it makes me think he is going to run. If he’s already decided to not run, why not just say so? It would make his positions even more credible, if that’s possible.

    I for one would welcome the earliest possible entry of Al Gore into the Dem primaries. I think it would give us all someone to rally behind, and basically deprive the moronic media of the horserace it so clearly wants at the expense of all real issues being addressed. He needs to jump in and remind everyone how poorly we’ve been served since 2000, by BOTH parties.

    Clinton and Edwards botched the most important vote, and now they want us to have faith that they won’t botch the next one? Sorry, I want someone who was brave enough to stand against the BS onslaught of 2002.

  • Good question. The answer: they’re not. It’s one my more unusual typos. It’s fixed.

    Whew. thanks for the update; I was starting to think I woke up in a twilight zone episode.

  • …there is no way he should use the Oscars to announce…

    I guess I’m in the minority here, then. Last year 43 million viewers watched the Oscars. That’s a whole lot of people hearing directly about his candidacy (potentially). No MSM spin. No filtering. No Al “invented the internet” Gore “still a sore loser from 2000” crud.

    If he is going to run, I think the Oscar’s is an outstanding place to announce it.

  • Edo, I think the tradeoff is between talking to the Oscars audience directly, and looking like just another political opportunist while doing so. We’re still a long, long ways away from the election; zeitgeist’s point about the money is valid, but I just believe that Gore’s emotional resonance with Democratic activists and primaries voters is so strong that he simply need not rush, and that doing so would cause more harm than good.

    Gore’s appeal is that he represents something bigger than political ambition. IMO, he needs to keep that appeal intact for as long as he can.

  • dajafi,

    Gore’s appeal is that he represents something bigger than political ambition. IMO, he needs to keep that appeal intact for as long as he can.

    Understood and I agree. However, given some of his recent appearances, I think Gore is now able to do that while speaking out. Hence, I think he could both announce his candidacy at the Oscars *and* do it in such a way that energizes the Dem activists and middle America. I’d defer to Unholy Moses or Zeitgeist for potential wording, but I think a “JFK challenged us to care about something bigger than ourselves. In that spirit and given the current crisis associated with global climate change, I’ve realized that the office of President of the USA is the best place to ensure that the crisis is averted. I run not for myself, or for the Democratic Party, but for the future of our planet.” yada yada yada.

  • Last year 43 million viewers watched the Oscars.

    Correction, the 2004 Oscars had 43 million viewers. Apparently only the Super Bowl and the final episode of Friends had more viewers in 2004. Source here

  • FWIW:

    “An average of 38.8 million viewers tuned in to the Walt Disney Co.-owned TV network’s 3.5-hour broadcast, down from 42.1 million last year, ABC said today, citing Nielsen Media Research data. ” source

  • I am so torn on this. On the one hand, I want Al Gore to be president. He wouldn’t be flawless at the job, but he would outshine any of the current crop (even the ones I like). On the other hand, he is one of the few politicians I can feel any real empathy toward, and I just don’t want to see him put himself and his family through another campaign.

    • Comments are closed.