http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opini...cle_1290105.php

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Orange Grove: Democrat women want more Gore

Notion is false that Hillary has her party's females locked up

By DENNY FREIDENRICH
Laguna Beach consultant

Dick Morris, the former Clinton strategist, knows a lot about politics. He recently created a stir when he wrote in the New York Post, "If Hillary runs for president, she will bring out single women in unheard-of numbers. Those extra votes will be hard to offset. Hillary will not so much win more support from the electorate that turned out in 2004 as she will expand the electorate in ways that the Republicans cannot hope to match."

I don't know what cloud Morris is on because I just spent the better part of the summer asking 148 Democrats coast to coast one critical question: Whom do you want to head the ticket in 2008? Much to my surprise, not one person said Hillary Clinton. I say "surprise" because I only talked to women.

If Clinton is out, then who's in? The majority (53 percent) said John Edwards, followed by Evan Bayh (26 percent). The rest of these Democrat women were divided among Mark Warner, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold.

Nobody mentioned Al Gore, until I did. Then, without hesitation, they all replied, "Me, too."

I think it's safe to say Democratic women want to win back the White House as much as men do. Yes, it would be inspiring to have a female president but, no, Clinton can't win in '08. Armed with this conclusion, their pragmatic choice (and mine) would be Al Gore.

So here's to you, Mr. Almost-President. All public disclaimers to the contrary, do you want to be the nation's 44th president or will you be content being just another filmmaker? I know what my choice would be; unfortunately, I don't know yours.

No one – repeat – no one has your credentials to run for president. You not only won the popular vote in 2000, you have since grown (and shaved off) a beard. I'd like to see any of your prospective primary opponents do that.

All kidding aside, your political resume would make even George Bush 41 blush. If there is a deficit in your background, it's your cautious, consensus-building approach to solving problems.

That is an admirable trait in a president, but not a candidate for the presidency. If you don't believe me, ask John Kerry. He still is trying to figure out how to react to those swift-boat commercials.

Clearly, the words bold and Gore rarely have appeared together. If you are thinking about running in 2008, you are going to need to address this right at the outset. I'm not talking about election hijinks. I'm talking about political substance.

The first way to be bold is to announce your vice presidential running mate the same day you announce your candidacy. No one has ever done this.

Then, pick a woman to be on the ticket with you. To this end, I urge you to look at Sen. Dianne Feinstein or Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Jane Harman. Besides hailing from vote-rich California, each in her own right is street smart, politically savvy and tough as nails.

While you won't be the first to run with a woman, you will be breaking through to a new generation of voters. Don't forget, many of today's young voters were in diapers when Walter Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.

The third way to be bold is to announce upfront your picks for secretaries of state, defense and treasury. Imagine the positive impression you will leave on Day 1 of your campaign: You not only have a plan to take Democrats and the nation in another direction, you have the confidence to tell voters who will help you make good on your promises.

It must be frustrating, looking in the mirror each morning, wondering what could have been. It's time to take another long look and ask yourself this simple question: If not me, then who? As far as the women I polled this summer are concerned, a bold Al Gore is just what the country needs two years from now.

As a newly minted filmmaker, I know you will understand when my women friends and I ask: Are you ready for your presidential close-up, Mr. Gore?

I think it's interesting that no one mentioned Gore on their own until the questioner brought up his name, and then they all agreed that's who they'd want as their pick. I think some of this is reflected in the polls we see. People don't think Gore's running, so they pick someone else. But if they were to think he was running, I think there'd be a stampede to elect him.

And I really feel that if AL gets in there, that most women would prefer AL GORE to Hillary, I know I do. :)

Yes, the fact that Hillary's a woman really doesn't mean much to me. I never considered myself a "feminist" or a "women's libber," maybe because I grew up already liberated and never let anyone keep me down. I care much more about a person being qualified to hold the office of the presidency than about the person's gender. And Al Gore is, hands down, the most qualified person on the planet to be president of the United States.

Yes, I love that, "most qualified person on the planet to be president of the United States." I can't even put it in words how much that is the truth.

I think that is it exactly.

And I think that sentiment will continue to grow as long as he wants to wait. I'd love for him to pull a stunt like the next time he gives the pat "no plans to run" answer, just turn to one side and give an exaggerated wink. People would go absolutely nuts! Hey, maybe he should announce on Saturday Night Live! After all, he unannounced the day after his last time there!
He could yuk it up as described above, create a stir, have everyone guessing hte next day as to what it all meant... then do an interview to talk about climate, and when the inevitable question comes, just deadpan "why, do you think I should?" Yhen when the interviewer says something like "well a lot of people are saying so" he could say, "oh, ok then" and see what the poor guy (or gal) does.

I wrote that as a fanciful joke, but actually, that is the campaign style I hope to see. Talk passionately about what you want to fix, but low key the "I want to sit in the big chair". He is, after all, too experienced to act like he is drooling over it. It is rightfully his, and he can graciously accept it. Obviously the attacks will have to be countered, but generally speaking the campaign should be the un-campaign. The more the pug looks like a spolied brat wannabe and Al looks like the heir apparant, the better!

And of course, that would suit his personality better and he'd, I think, be more relaxed and natural, and all the more unbeatable.

I agree 100% with everything you said.

See how boring it is here? No one disagrees with anybody! That's one reason I don't like deleting posts by people who disagree with us. How much fun is it this way? :D

Oh, I'm all for thoughtful disagreement and reasoned discourse.

I try to encourage that whenever I can. That's why, like you, I let myself get drawn into discussion with the tin-hat crowd over at AG08, until it became obvious that there was no hope. When someone takes a position of "don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up" then the best thing to do is ignore. But if they are aggressive about it and keep on keeping on, then I look at them, like a protestor screaming to disrupt a speech or debate. I guess the difference is the latter are actually disrupting the speaker and audience, whereas in a forum the readers can just "switch channels" and ignore. But when a visitor sees the junk and just leaves, thats no good.

I just think, much as a city cleans grafitti off overpasses, that some "pruning" of noise is in order after a time. i think it is off-putting to those who might actually have something to say. I know if I visit a site and am inclined to chime in with an opinion, I don't bother if I see there is a lot of name-calling and childishness. It is obvious then that it is just a Animal House food-fight mentality, and there is no point.

Name-calling is never acceptable, IMO. That's why I don't allow it here, and now that a certain person is gone, no one who remains ever gets involved in name-calling. I don't care if the poster is a right-wing shill or just an idiot. Name-calling reduces us to their level, and it's unbecoming.

But I do love a good debate. So if someone has a different opinion or point of view, that's okay with me. As long as they remain respectful. But I agree, dbciii, that when we get into these things that go on for page after page after page, essentially saying the same thing back and forth, there's no point. It gets very tiresome. That's how that 9/11 thread became at AG.org. Who could stand it anymore?

Anyway, it's nice that we're all pretty much in agreement here, but a little dissent would be nice once in a while. ;)