Stop Me If You've Heard This One...
Jan 22, 2007 Filed in: Politics
Democratic Melting Pot.
A woman, a black, and a Hispanic all declare their
interest in running for the Democratic nomination.
Are the Dems pandering, or are they just better at
representing modern America?
Democratic Hopefuls: Is Anyone
Laughing?
Remember all those racist jokes so popular in the 70s and 80s, before the PC movement? You know, they all start with something like “So a lesbian, a black, and a Catholic priest are taking sky diving lessons…” Not that I want to raise the ire of the PC Police, but how about this one for 2007: “A woman, a black, and a hispanic all declare for the 2008 election…” But, as everyone knows, this is no joke, this happens to be the unspun truth for the Democratic Party.
The last time the Democrats or Republicans ran anybody on a presidential ticket who was anything other than white and male was the 1984 election, when Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale’s running mate. Mondale’s ineptitude as a candidate, coupled with Ferraro’s backpedalling about the shady finances of her husband John "Goodfellas" Zaccaro, led to electoral disaster. (“I will release both our tax returns. No wait, John’s too much of a crook. Um, I’ll release my tax returns. No wait, that won’t work either. How about I share my top secret meatball sauce recipie?” ) Piling on with the bad news after the election, it turned out that most women voted against Ms. F., so that the Mondale-Ferraro ticket carried only one state, and that against an extremely weakend incumbent President Reagan who couldn’t put together a single coherent sentence in the last debate.
The popular wisdom afterwards was that a woman or minority candidate would eventually become president, but the first one would have to come from the Republicans. Elizabeth Dole’s name was mentioned. Dole, now senator from North Carolina, has shown zero interest in the job once aspired to by her husband.
Even in the last presidential election, two short years ago, it was seen as somewhat daring and forward to have a Catholic and a Jew on the Democratic ticket. They did horribly, but that had much more to do with who they were than who they worshipped, and lately that particular pair seem to be in a contest with each other to see who can alienate more Democrats. Nonetheless, the American electorate has been extemely uniform is electing white, Christian males. You have to go all the way back to JFK, in fact, to find a religion as “exotic” as Catholicism among the presidents. Just WASPy males as far as the eye can see.
Current theory among Dems flies in the face of this traditional pattern. Some of this, surely, is due to the changing demographics of the electorate. Democrats have always been more representative of the actual electorate than Republicans, and the electorate has drastically changed since the July 1984 Democratic Convention when Mondale picked Ferraro as his running mate. In fact, the US Census Bureau predicts that as of 2050, minorities will be the majority. And while women, blacks, and hispanics are still hugely under-represented at the top echelons of the American power structure, gains have been made. Women, for example, made up 48.6% of the students that entered medical school in 2006. In politics, the more than 42 million hispanics in this country are just beginning to be aware of their political muscle. And 62% of Americans believe that we are ready for a black president, according to a December poll.
But more than demographics is likely behind this rainbow of candidates; it may have most to do with who’s available. Or, to quote the deservedly disgraced ex-Secretary of Defense: “You don’t go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you have.” Even the politically myopic Rumsfeld could look at the current heavy hitters among Dems and see that there’s not exactly a crowd of standard issue white males currently polling in the double digits. (Recently declared John Edwards and decidedly undeclared Al Gore are the only ones in this category, according to a CNN poll published Jan 22.)
At the moment, 2008 looks like a lock for the Dems. In the senate, 22 Repubs are up for reelection versus 11 Dems. In the House, it’s anybody’s race, but the mood of the country would have to change drastically to throw it back into Republican hands. As for the presidency, in a popularity contest between George W. Bush, Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, and Attila the Hun, Bush would be lucky to come in 4th. He’s not running in 2008, but most recent polls indicate Americans are fed up with Republicans and their failed policies. And what are the current potential Republican nominees espousing? More of the same, more of the same, more of the same. Even supposed aisle-crosser and likely-to-have-the-most-appeal-to-independents-in-a-general-election Arizona Senator John McCain says of the Iraq war: More of the same, but add 21,000 more troops.
Yes, the history of the Democratic party is replete with examples of defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. And two years is a long time, and it’s anybody’s guess whether US Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), US Senator Barack Obama (Illinois), or New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will weather the storm that is a modern presidential campaign. But just for sake of argument, suppose that it turns out, as we get closer to next summer’s Democratic National Convention in Denver, that the electorate is not as progressive as we hope that it is, that in fact, none of these three candidates has any hope in a general election, and we are looking at four more years of disaster. (Do the words “President Mitt” strike fear into your heart as much as mine?) Might there be some other candidate, some dark horse who could suddenly storm from the back and take the lead? Someone, perhaps, who already has an impressive war chest, impeccable credentials, maybe even a new movie out? Someone who actaully won the popular vote in 2000 (to say nothing of the electoral vote, may Katherine Harris drown in the juices of well-deserved defeat)? Might that be the time for re-emergence of Al Gore?
Gore has been very circumspect about entering the race, one might even say wary, if not positively standoffish. He has done nothing to flirt with the media nor anything to raise hopes of potential volunteers. But he hasn’t ruled it out, either, as he did in 2004. While other Democrats jockey for position, Gore is at his best when he doesn’t appear to be trying. It seems that anyone who watched An Inconvient Truth walks out with the same question: Is that the guy who ran in 2000? Where the hell was that guy during the campaign? If Al had seemed the least bit contrite or even human in 2000, he would have mopped the floor with Bush.
If the Al Gore of the movies is the same Al to run in 2008, he’d be a stunner of a candidate. And with huge reserves of cash (Al Gore did not invent the Internet, nor did he ever say he did, but he sure has found a way to make tens of millions from it), legions of supporters, and a very strong undercurrent of the “we was wronged” sentiment, Gore might storm to victory. But does he have any interest in the job? He’s probably not saying because he doesn’t have any idea himself. I’m sure he looks at Hillary and thinks he could do a much better job than her, but what about Obama or Richardson? Might he be thinking that it’s time for a new generation to step up to the plate, out with the old, in with the new? Or maybe he thinks that there’s only so much good one person can do even as president, and he’ll do more long-term good for the world by continuing his anti-global warming crusade. Or maybe he’s just waiting to see the lay of the land. On the other hand, maybe he’s just decided that even if he can win and can do a better job than the rest, he’s just too bitter from the last time around, and can’t stomach the thought of another nightmarish campaign.
Whatever Gore may be thinking, we’re not likely to know for awhile. True, campaigns nowadays start as soon as the polls close after the previous election, but November 2008 is still a long way aways. Political history buffs might remember that Bill Clinton, the last Democrat to occupy the White House, didn’t declare his candidacy until October the year before the election. That left 13 months of campaigning before the election, which seemed to work just fine for him. We’re still nine months away from that jumping off point, nineteen months before the Democratic convention, and twenty-two months before the election. Plenty of time for surprises.
Return to Home Page
Remember all those racist jokes so popular in the 70s and 80s, before the PC movement? You know, they all start with something like “So a lesbian, a black, and a Catholic priest are taking sky diving lessons…” Not that I want to raise the ire of the PC Police, but how about this one for 2007: “A woman, a black, and a hispanic all declare for the 2008 election…” But, as everyone knows, this is no joke, this happens to be the unspun truth for the Democratic Party.
The last time the Democrats or Republicans ran anybody on a presidential ticket who was anything other than white and male was the 1984 election, when Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale’s running mate. Mondale’s ineptitude as a candidate, coupled with Ferraro’s backpedalling about the shady finances of her husband John "Goodfellas" Zaccaro, led to electoral disaster. (“I will release both our tax returns. No wait, John’s too much of a crook. Um, I’ll release my tax returns. No wait, that won’t work either. How about I share my top secret meatball sauce recipie?” ) Piling on with the bad news after the election, it turned out that most women voted against Ms. F., so that the Mondale-Ferraro ticket carried only one state, and that against an extremely weakend incumbent President Reagan who couldn’t put together a single coherent sentence in the last debate.
The popular wisdom afterwards was that a woman or minority candidate would eventually become president, but the first one would have to come from the Republicans. Elizabeth Dole’s name was mentioned. Dole, now senator from North Carolina, has shown zero interest in the job once aspired to by her husband.
Even in the last presidential election, two short years ago, it was seen as somewhat daring and forward to have a Catholic and a Jew on the Democratic ticket. They did horribly, but that had much more to do with who they were than who they worshipped, and lately that particular pair seem to be in a contest with each other to see who can alienate more Democrats. Nonetheless, the American electorate has been extemely uniform is electing white, Christian males. You have to go all the way back to JFK, in fact, to find a religion as “exotic” as Catholicism among the presidents. Just WASPy males as far as the eye can see.
Current theory among Dems flies in the face of this traditional pattern. Some of this, surely, is due to the changing demographics of the electorate. Democrats have always been more representative of the actual electorate than Republicans, and the electorate has drastically changed since the July 1984 Democratic Convention when Mondale picked Ferraro as his running mate. In fact, the US Census Bureau predicts that as of 2050, minorities will be the majority. And while women, blacks, and hispanics are still hugely under-represented at the top echelons of the American power structure, gains have been made. Women, for example, made up 48.6% of the students that entered medical school in 2006. In politics, the more than 42 million hispanics in this country are just beginning to be aware of their political muscle. And 62% of Americans believe that we are ready for a black president, according to a December poll.
But more than demographics is likely behind this rainbow of candidates; it may have most to do with who’s available. Or, to quote the deservedly disgraced ex-Secretary of Defense: “You don’t go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you have.” Even the politically myopic Rumsfeld could look at the current heavy hitters among Dems and see that there’s not exactly a crowd of standard issue white males currently polling in the double digits. (Recently declared John Edwards and decidedly undeclared Al Gore are the only ones in this category, according to a CNN poll published Jan 22.)
At the moment, 2008 looks like a lock for the Dems. In the senate, 22 Repubs are up for reelection versus 11 Dems. In the House, it’s anybody’s race, but the mood of the country would have to change drastically to throw it back into Republican hands. As for the presidency, in a popularity contest between George W. Bush, Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, and Attila the Hun, Bush would be lucky to come in 4th. He’s not running in 2008, but most recent polls indicate Americans are fed up with Republicans and their failed policies. And what are the current potential Republican nominees espousing? More of the same, more of the same, more of the same. Even supposed aisle-crosser and likely-to-have-the-most-appeal-to-independents-in-a-general-election Arizona Senator John McCain says of the Iraq war: More of the same, but add 21,000 more troops.
Yes, the history of the Democratic party is replete with examples of defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. And two years is a long time, and it’s anybody’s guess whether US Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), US Senator Barack Obama (Illinois), or New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will weather the storm that is a modern presidential campaign. But just for sake of argument, suppose that it turns out, as we get closer to next summer’s Democratic National Convention in Denver, that the electorate is not as progressive as we hope that it is, that in fact, none of these three candidates has any hope in a general election, and we are looking at four more years of disaster. (Do the words “President Mitt” strike fear into your heart as much as mine?) Might there be some other candidate, some dark horse who could suddenly storm from the back and take the lead? Someone, perhaps, who already has an impressive war chest, impeccable credentials, maybe even a new movie out? Someone who actaully won the popular vote in 2000 (to say nothing of the electoral vote, may Katherine Harris drown in the juices of well-deserved defeat)? Might that be the time for re-emergence of Al Gore?
Gore has been very circumspect about entering the race, one might even say wary, if not positively standoffish. He has done nothing to flirt with the media nor anything to raise hopes of potential volunteers. But he hasn’t ruled it out, either, as he did in 2004. While other Democrats jockey for position, Gore is at his best when he doesn’t appear to be trying. It seems that anyone who watched An Inconvient Truth walks out with the same question: Is that the guy who ran in 2000? Where the hell was that guy during the campaign? If Al had seemed the least bit contrite or even human in 2000, he would have mopped the floor with Bush.
If the Al Gore of the movies is the same Al to run in 2008, he’d be a stunner of a candidate. And with huge reserves of cash (Al Gore did not invent the Internet, nor did he ever say he did, but he sure has found a way to make tens of millions from it), legions of supporters, and a very strong undercurrent of the “we was wronged” sentiment, Gore might storm to victory. But does he have any interest in the job? He’s probably not saying because he doesn’t have any idea himself. I’m sure he looks at Hillary and thinks he could do a much better job than her, but what about Obama or Richardson? Might he be thinking that it’s time for a new generation to step up to the plate, out with the old, in with the new? Or maybe he thinks that there’s only so much good one person can do even as president, and he’ll do more long-term good for the world by continuing his anti-global warming crusade. Or maybe he’s just waiting to see the lay of the land. On the other hand, maybe he’s just decided that even if he can win and can do a better job than the rest, he’s just too bitter from the last time around, and can’t stomach the thought of another nightmarish campaign.
Whatever Gore may be thinking, we’re not likely to know for awhile. True, campaigns nowadays start as soon as the polls close after the previous election, but November 2008 is still a long way aways. Political history buffs might remember that Bill Clinton, the last Democrat to occupy the White House, didn’t declare his candidacy until October the year before the election. That left 13 months of campaigning before the election, which seemed to work just fine for him. We’re still nine months away from that jumping off point, nineteen months before the Democratic convention, and twenty-two months before the election. Plenty of time for surprises.
Return to Home Page
|