|
I followed that election for about two to three hours each day for two years. At the beginning of his campaign, all of the so-called political experts said it would be an uphill climb for Gore due to Clinton's impeachment. He was polling 20 percent behind Bush* from the very beginning.
The really odd thing about this is that in 1992 when Clinton asked Gore to join the ticket, Gore did not want to because he thought Clinton had a sleazy reputation that might possibly taint his (Gore's) future political ambitions. Turns out Gore was right about that. After deciding to sit that race out following his son's accident, Gore did an about-face when Clinton offered him the equivalent of a co-presidency. Read David Mariness on the subject. He's one of the best biographers in the United States, and his work is unquestionned. Due to the fact Clinton offered Gore complete control over approximately eight spheres of influence, in areas in which Gore was very interested, Gore accepted the offer, put aside his personal misgivings about Clinton's personal reputation, and ran.
Many people in the party said the order of the ticket should have been reversed, and that it was Gore's presence on the ticket which helped Clinton win victory. I totally agree with that. Gore is a very solid, steady person and he lent a lot of stability to the Clinton ticket.
Over a period of time when Gore was running during the 2000 election, he had private pollsters who told him in what areas Clinton's campaigning would hurt Gore's chances. Gore is the type of person who leaves nothing to chance. Those areas were areas strategically important to Gore's Electoral College calculatons, areas which might turn away from a Gore presidency due simply to Clinton's immorality. One of these was the State of Pennsylvania. Clinton did campaign for Gore is areas where his (Clinton's) womanizing and impeachment were non-factors. Get your facts straight.
Gore overcame the Bush* 20 point lead through a series of very smart maneuvers. Karl Rove, often mentioned as very politically astute in this area, paid one million dollars for a study on how Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election. I always am reminded of this when I read or hear people say Gore ran a terrible election. This always comes from the Clinton element of the party who resented Clinton's not being used more. However, as I said before, Gore left nothing to chance and went with his professional pollsters advice. And he was right to do so.
During the impeachment process, many people in Washington said Gore was actually running the government because Clinton was too depressed to do so. I can never get over the Gore-bashing I see on this thread but it invaribly comes from people who have simply listened to those loyal to the Clintons or the propaganda spewed by the Republicans trying to justify their assertion that Gore lost the election, which of course, he did not.
|