Gore Commentary

Robert A. George writes about the former Vice-President's positives and negatives - and doesn't come to a conclusion one way or the other.

My thoughts? He's the front-runner in the Democrat primary in 2004, but he's just about the worst candidate the Dems could realistically nominate, with the exception of Dick "Howdy-Doody" Gephardt. Hillary has the Clinton name and the Clinton rolodex, as well as the support of Hollywood leftists and "soccer moms". Daschle is the highest elected Democrat in office, and his soft-spoken manner might play well with Midwestern voters. Kerry is a war hero. Lieberman is a centrist and sort-of a minority. John Edwards is telegenic and from the South. All of these people would have a better shot at the White House than Gore would. But none of them will likely get the chance. Hard-core Democrats (the kind that vote in primaries) are still bitter over Gore's narrow loss in 2000. They still think he won, they think Bush is illegitimate, and they want revenge. If Gore keeps waving the bloody shirt, he's almost guaranteed the nomination, escpecially given the fact that he has the most foreign-policy experience of any Democrat in the field.

But he won't win the general election, because the average non-hardcore-Democrat remembers him as a pedantic, sneering, condescending jerk. President Bush is none of those things. It's still very early, but the smart money is on "four more years" as opposed to "Gore's four years".