« The right of rights | Main | Mmm-mmm . . . DO-nuts! »
June 12, 2006
And in this corner . . .
To cut to the chase, here is the last quotation from a Christian Science Monitor story on the paper’s editorial board meeting with the noted pollster John Zogby:
“This could be Nixon redux – 1968 – for Al Gore. This could be his moment.”
Nixon, ’68: That’s when Richard Nixon, after losing the 1960 presidential race and the 1962 California gubernatorial race and telling reporters they wouldn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, won the White House.
The comparison is intriguing in some ways. Gore’s narrow presidential defeat will be 8 years old in 2008, just as Nixon’s was in 1968. Nixon was a two-term former vice president and the out-party candidate during an unpopular war, and he ran on a serious domestic issue: law and order. Gore is a two-term former vice president from the out party, and he is championing a serious issue: global warming.
Of course, there are differences, too. Nixon was a political animal in ways that Gore is not. Nixon was also obsessive and brooding; Gore simply seems uncomfortable in his skin – unable to be himself in public. (I’ve got nothing against beards – I’ve had one nearly all my adult life, but when Gore grew one after the 2000 election, all I could think of was Floyd Patterson wearing that silly fake beard after the 1962 loss to Sonny Liston.)
So what about Gore in ’08? We ran a George Will column today encouraging him to run, but anything Will says on this subject is suspicious. Most people – even Democrats – respond to the idea of a Gore candidacy with groans. I mean, in 2000, he ran as a near-incumbent on an eight-year record of peace and prosperity, and he lost.
My own view? First, please recognize that as a New Hampshire editor, at this stage in the quadrennial cycle, I am an official greeter. My philosophy about the first primary has always been the more, the merrier.
That said, Gore ought to run for president. New Hampshire is a place to test ideas, and Gore has a big one. New Hampshire also tests people. Gore isn’t the same person he was in 2000. As Zogby suggested, we had many new Nixons – why not a new Gore? If he’s learned, if he’s grown, if he’s come to know himself, this is the place where all that will show – and where the voting public will recognize it.
If not, what’s lost?
Posted by Mike Pride at June 12, 2006 06:55 PM