![]() |
||||||||
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - Dec. 1, 2000 | There's a reason Vice President Al Gore is fighting the presidential election results: His political future is hanging in the balance. Even though, historically, winners of the popular vote who are denied the White House have redeemed themselves, Al Gore's chances of getting another crack at the presidency are long at best. In short, if he loses this election, Gore's political career is toast. If Gore loses this election, he will be the fourth man in American history to win the popular vote but be denied the White House. In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote and lost the presidency to John Quincy Adams, but it was only a postponement. Four years later Jackson walloped Adams in the rematch. In 1876, Rutherford Hayes lost the popular vote and won the Oval Office by a fluke (the Democratic House voted Colorado into the Union; Colorado's 3 electoral votes cost Samuel Tilden the election). The Democratic nomination was Tilden's for the asking, but he withdrew at the convention in June 1880. And in 1888, Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in the course of losing to Benjamin Harrison. In 1892, Cleveland came back to beat Harrison convincingly.
Indeed, much of the political sentiment today seems ready to award Gore the office in 2004. The day after the election, Tim Russert said that Gore could be a "shadow president" and would be "almost a de facto nominee in 2004." Michael Beschloss said that Gore "would have an opportunity to be almost a shadow president over the next four years." Dick Morris wrote that Gore should "use the popular indignation over the illegitimacy of the Bush triumph to get the nomination and win the election four years hence." Predicting a Gore concession, Linda Monk, author of "The Bill of Rights: A User's Guide," wrote: "Vice President Al Gore is more likely to quit because he knows he has another chance. If Gore withdraws gracefully, he will be the anointed hero and shadow president until 2004." But the best indication of Gore's political future came from DNC head Ed Rendell on Election Night. Moments after the networks declared Bush the winner, Rendell appeared on television denouncing the vice president. He should have used President Clinton more, Rendell said. He shouldn't have pulled money out of Ohio. He should have at least carried Clinton's home state of Arkansas. The race, said Rendell, had always been Gore's to lose. Rendell was described as "furious." Talk to certain Democratic operatives and you already hear the half-joking refrain: Gray Davis-Dick Gephardt '04! The real historical analogy for Gore isn't 1824, 1876, 1888 or even Nixon in 1960. It's 1998. The election fight is the impeachment fight, and it's to the death. The great modern political lesson that Bill Clinton taught America is this: Victory is vindication. Be it healthcare in 1994 or the government shutdown in 1995 or impeachment in 1998, now, more than ever, might makes right. And if Al Gore loses he isn't going to be Jackson, Cleveland or Nixon. He'll be Newt Gingrich. That is the reason he will fight this election until the bitter, putrid end. Until the last elector has cast his vote. There will be no concession, no admission of defeat. Al Gore is fighting like a man for whom there is no tomorrow -- because for him, there isn't.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Salon News A Salon-eye view of the day's news, with investigative reports, analysis and interviews with newsmakers. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Mothers Who Think | News
People | Politics | Sex | Tech & Business and The Free Software Project
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus | Salon Shop
Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited
Copyright 2005 Salon.com