The thought of a Gore vs. Hillary matchup is intriguing for any political junkie. There's supposedly some animosity between Gore and the Clintons over the 2000 election. Gore says Clinton's dirty deeds cost him, while Clinton says Gore should have used him more during the campaign.
From my Republican standpoint, a Gore entry would remove Hillary's presumptive nominee status, and force her to fight for Democratic votes. At this point, it seems like she's looking past the primaries, and trying to position herself as a centrist for the general election. Delaying this would make it a little harder for her to win in November, were she able to defeat Gore.
Who would I rather see as the Democratic nominee? Probably Gore, from a policy standpoint, because I think a Gore presidency would be less disastrous than a Clinton presidency. Gore's global warming pursuits would probably harm us less than Hillary's drive for socialized medicine. However, I think Hillary would be more likely to kick butt (say, that of Iran) if necessary.
I'm not sure who would have a better chance of winning in November. Hillary has high negative ratings, but she also has the Clinton machine behind her. Presumably, Gore would be less wooden than he was back in 2000. Overall, I'd say the GOP has a better chance against Hillary. But do I want to gamble like that?
In the end, I think I do want Gore to run. This will ensure a fight on the Democratic side, rather than a Hillary coronation. This would help the Republicans in what, so far, is shaping up to be a Democratic year. Who would I want to win the Democratic nomination? For now, I'm undecided.
what? you don't want a president who's proposed giving a $5000 bond to every child born in the US, that will mature by the time they're 18, so they can go to college? I mean, the money will appear out of no where to supply this idea, it sounds great to me! ;)
ReplyDeletei am with you on this craig. however...it scares me that IF he runs, he will win. that isn't good, either.
ReplyDelete