> Just as a side note - I would find the use of the term "Shrub" offensive
if
> it weren't so pathetic. So you don't like him. I know that civility has
> become a purely conservative virtue nowadays - certainly judging by campus
> politics liberals stopped believing in it a long time ago - but that's
> really kind of sad, and it probably does more to explain why Bush won
> (when, given the economic background, Gore should have pulled 60% of the
> vote) than any other single factor.
>
How can you miss the main legacy baggage that Gore had? If you had the
ecconomy as it was in 2000 to campaign on, and a popular president, why
wouldn't you have him campaign for you?
The reason is that the Clinton legacy was a two edged sword for Gore.
People liked Clinton personally, they liked the ecconomy, but they were
upset that he didn't, to put it bluntly, keep his pants on in the oval
office. There were tremendous negatives concerning the Clinton legacy
during the campaign. Gore's folks may have been inept, and may have
miscalled it, but I've seen a lot of analysis stating that Gore needed
distance from Clinton to win.
I cannot imagine Gore losing if Clinton had his pants on during those 8
years. Further, much of the incivility in Washington was the group who
hated Clinton so much that they would say or do anything to bring him down.
I took that bring honor back to the White House and civility back to
Washington as a shorthand for "you won't have this sort of problem with me."
The trick for Bush was to get the nation to focus on their disgust with
Clinton's behavior instead of the good condition of the ecconomy. The exact
opposite was the trick for Gore. Bush was better at doing his job
campaigning than Gore was, I won't argue with that.
Dan M.
Dan M.
