[lbo-talk] My thoughts on Tom Frank's article in Harper's

[Dennis Perrin]

> A couple of days ago I was going to comment that the Democratic Party is
> going to be hurt this year by their decision to run Gore in 2000. My gut
> feeling after reading about recent polls showing little erosion of
> Bush's support, even after Richard Clarkes damagin testimony, is that
> the polls have discovered the core support for Bush which will be hard
> to erode. I would argue that this core support would be eroding right
> now if the Democrats hadn't run Gore in 2000, who many people see as a
> crony of the Clinton administration. The Clinton scandals may have been
> trivial, but liberals and progressives fool themselves if they don't
> take into account how much many Americans hated Clinton, and by
> extension, Al Gore.


> Chuck0

I'm certainly no fan of the Clintons or of Gore, but I wonder about this.
Yes, there was tremendous hatred for Clinton from "loyal" Americans, spurred
on by rightwing talk radio and cable performers like Coulter; but I'd bet
you 5 bucks that if Clinton had run against Bush in 2000, he would have
wiped the floor with him, esp in the debates. Clinton is smooth and very
talented in the public sphere, and Gore's biggest mistake was not using
Clinton's talent during the campaign. As Doug pointed out, Clinton left
office with a 60% approval rating -- and this after being impeached! My
extended family is moderate to very conservative, and only two relatives I
know of are pro-Bush. The rest never say anything bad about Clinton, and a
few who voted for Reagan wish that Clinton was still in office.

Bush's hard core will remain solid, but don't underestimate the amount of
fear & loathing that Bush has stirred in moderates and swing voters.

DP