Nineties nostalgia! Wahoo!
Okay, we're not quite there yet. That '90s Show has yet to be added to any TV lineup. But this decade has stunk so badly that the twentieth-century fin de siecle looks better every day. Yesterday's perjurer and blowjob king is now beating George W. Bush in an opinion poll. Remember the pathological Clinton haters of the 1990s? The Scaife-sponsored efforts to nail Bubba on anything they could find, including unpaid parking tickets? According to the poll, "59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had."
Who is this 27 percent? They are probably among the same small minority (30 percent or so) who still think Bush is doing a good job.
But here's part to make the wingnuts' brains explode:
Forty-six percent to forty-one percent. Yikes.
And now, New York has a cover story on Al Gore. Not only does he have a new TV network and a new documentary film, but this article is floating the idea that maybe--just maybe--Gore could and should run in 2008. The article talks the terrible campaign he ran in 2000. Like John Kerry, Gore tried to be all things to all people and listened too much to the consultants and know-nothings.
I suspect the Gore we're seeing now is closer to the real man. It would be terrific to see him become an elder statesman of a newly emerging progressive movement. But it would be a wonderful feeling of vindication to see him throw his hat back into the ring two years from now, to claim what probably should've been his in 2000. A Gore campaign with active grassroots (including netroots) support, minus the goofy image consultants and DLC wimps, would be terrific. Now that the overrated John McCain has decided to become Dubya 2.0, we need a real straight-talk express. Gore could be the man to get it started.
Do I dare hope?
Who is this 27 percent? They are probably among the same small minority (30 percent or so) who still think Bush is doing a good job.
But here's part to make the wingnuts' brains explode:
When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.
Forty-six percent to forty-one percent. Yikes.
And now, New York has a cover story on Al Gore. Not only does he have a new TV network and a new documentary film, but this article is floating the idea that maybe--just maybe--Gore could and should run in 2008. The article talks the terrible campaign he ran in 2000. Like John Kerry, Gore tried to be all things to all people and listened too much to the consultants and know-nothings.
I suspect the Gore we're seeing now is closer to the real man. It would be terrific to see him become an elder statesman of a newly emerging progressive movement. But it would be a wonderful feeling of vindication to see him throw his hat back into the ring two years from now, to claim what probably should've been his in 2000. A Gore campaign with active grassroots (including netroots) support, minus the goofy image consultants and DLC wimps, would be terrific. Now that the overrated John McCain has decided to become Dubya 2.0, we need a real straight-talk express. Gore could be the man to get it started.
Do I dare hope?
Comments