Gore v. Clinton? no contest ...

When Democrats compare Al Gore to Hillary Clinton, they see two political titans — similar experience, similar gravitas, similar authority both to manage the labyrinthine federal government and to credibly represent the United States in the global arena.

But Hillary Clinton has always engendered bitter antipathies, like perhaps no other figure in American political life today. These come not only from the millions of Republicans who say they would “never” vote for her, but from much of the core left Democratic base as well. I’ve never quite figured out why so many on the right so loathe the Clintons. But many progressives read the June 4, 2007 cover story of The Nation magazine by Ari Berman, entitled “Hillary, Inc.,” which detailed the intricate web of the senator’s corporate connections. Much of the core left sees her as a centrist, an incrementalist, a triangulator, a hawk who would do little to challenge the unaccountable leviathan that Eisenhower’s military/industrial complex has become, a DLC Democrat who favors caution over conviction, calculation over commitment.

And with both the intensity of feelings about the Bush legacy and the rise even just since the last presidential election of the “net roots,” that core left today is quite substantial.

In addition, with Senator Clinton, the old chestnut about her ultimate “electability” seems destined to become her decisive variable. In a June 12 Los Angeles Times survey, Senator Clinton comes out 11 points ahead of any competitor to win the Democratic nomination. When matched up against Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani, however, Obama defeats Giuliani 46-41 percent, and Edwards defeats Giuliani 46- 43 percent. But Giuliani defeats Clinton by a whopping 49- 39 percent margin!

Several polls have consistently validated this result. Although a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll two weeks ago had Clinton over Giuliani 48-43 percent, three others by Gallup have had Giuliani over Clinton by an average of 5 points. This, despite some surveys reporting that voters favor a generic Democrat over a generic Republican by more than 20 points.

There is no way this does not become the defining issue for Democratic primary voters in the first three months of 2008.

Senator Clinton’s healthy and enduring advantage in the polls clearly indicates that many Democrats do like her. But in their moment of truth in the privacy of the voting booth, primary voters who think highly of her may in the end not pull the lever for her. Why not? Think the opposite of what happened to John Kerry.

Remember how, in the first three months of 2004, millions of voters who did not adore Kerry voted for him anyway, because they said they saw him as the most “electable” Democratic candidate? (Some wags observed that Democratic voters were so intent on ejecting George Bush from the White House that they voted not for the candidate they liked, but for a candidate they believed others would like in November.) Four years later, we may see almost exactly the reverse phenomenon. Millions of voters who like Hillary Clinton may vote for someone else anyway, because they will conclude, regrettably, that she “cannot win” in November.

And there really is only one possible “someone else.”

Bias Meaning and Definition

1. (v. t.) To incline to one side; to give a particular direction to; to influence; to prejudice; to prepossess.
2. (n.) A weight on the side of the ball used in the game of bowls, or a tendency imparted to the ball, which turns it from a straight line.
3. (n.) A slant; a diagonal; as, to cut cloth on the bias.
4. (n.) A leaning of the mind; propensity or prepossession toward an object or view, not leaving the mind indifferent; bent; inclination.
5. (n.) A wedge-shaped piece of cloth taken out of a garment (as the waist of a dress) to diminish its circumference.
6. (a.) Cut slanting or diagonally, as cloth.
7. (a.) Inclined to one side; swelled on one side.
8. (adv.) In a slanting manner; crosswise; obliquely; diagonally; as, to cut cloth bias.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORE: The best way to eliminate our influence down there is to defeat NAFTA. The best way to preserve it is to enter into this bargain, continue the lowering of the barriers. We've got a commitment that they're going to raise their minimum wage with productivity. We've got an agreement for the first time in history to use trade sanctions to compel the enforcement of their environmental standards. As they begin to develop and locate better jobs farther south, we cut down on illegal immigration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Has that happened?

GORE: Well, it's hard to say that illegal immigration got any better. It obviously got a lot worse. But it might have been worse still without the effort to try to boost the economy in Mexico.

You know, during the Clinton-Gore administration, we faced a couple of big challenges on that front. There was a financial crisis in Mexico and we took the bold step of shoring them up. And then when it came to this agreement to try to strengthen their economy and get more good jobs down there to slow down the flow of immigration, I think we did the right thing.

I think other developments in the aftermath of those years, principally the rise of China and the movement of jobs from Mexico to China and to other Asian countries, made the situation worse than it would have otherwise been. But without the agreement that was made and without the shoring up of their economy back then, it could have been much worse still.

He discussed the relevance of Marshall McLuhan to our present predicaments, and the overwhelming dominance today of images over ideas. He lamented that the “well-informed citizenry” envisioned by our framers has degenerated into a “well-amused audience.” He issued a plea for all Americans to work to restore to our public square a rational policy debate within a democratic marketplace of ideas.

On a more prosaic and immediate level, he delivered a blistering critique of the Bush Administration’s Iraq debacle, its inaction on climate change, its obeisance to the rich and the powerful and the corporate elite, and its casting aside the long-standing American ethos against torture — first insisted upon, he reminded us, by George Washington. And he made my own anti-nuclear heart beat more quickly when he delivered a one-word verdict on Bush’s plans to build a new generation of nuclear weapons while hectoring countries like Iran and North Korea (and likely soon others) to forego nuclear weapons.

When Democrats compare Al Gore to Hillary Clinton, they see two political titans — similar experience, similar gravitas, similar authority both to manage the labyrinthine federal government and to credibly represent the United States in the global arena.

Much of the core left sees her as a centrist, an incrementalist, a triangulator, a hawk who would do little to challenge the unaccountable leviathan that Eisenhower’s military/industrial complex has become, a DLC Democrat who favors caution over conviction, calculation over commitment.