| ||||||
|
Arts & Entertainment Books Comics Health & Body Media Mothers Who Think  NewsPeople Politics2000 Technology - Free Software Travel & Food  Columnists
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - Also Today For a full list of today's Salon News stories, go to the
News home page. - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon - - - - - - - - - - - - Salon Columnists - - - - - - - - - - - - Recently in Salon News Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Throw the bums out | page 1, 2
Leaving aside President Clinton's own natural superiority on the stump, an important difference between that campaign and this one is the difference between James Carville and Tony Coelho, between George Stephanopoulos and Carter Eskew -- a difference of substance and style. Whatever their faults, nobody could doubt that Carville and Stephanopoulos were dedicated to Democratic ideals -- and whatever their virtues, there seems to be little doubt that Coehlo and Eskew have other fat fish to fry. To the mechanical-minded, this may seem like a contrast of no consequence. After all, with an intelligent and highly qualified candidate like Gore, a determination to stay "on message" with Democratic fundamentals and a sufficient war chest, why should it matter who gives the orders? It matters because, as Mario Cuomo once noted, a successful campaign is an exercise in poetry (as opposed to a competent government, which functions in prose). Cuomo's eloquent observation is especially but not exclusively pertinent to Democrats, who usually must inspire more voters with less money than their Republican rivals. Joe Conason Joe Conason's column appears in Salon News every other Tuesday.
The domination of a Democratic campaign by figures such as Coehlo and Eskew mutes that kind of inspiration with excessive caution. It's true that Gore suffers from his own personal awkwardness as a candidate, but his campaign's hesitation in responding to political opportunities and challenges has aggravated the feeling of ennui that now surrounds him. In recent weeks, for example, Gore has forfeited at least two chances to stand up against the far right, and thus left his friends wondering what, if anything, he stands for. When the authorities in Kansas declared their hostility to evolution, the vice president should have risen to the occasion with a major speech in defense of natural science, the Enlightenment and the separation of church and state. The devotees of creationism are not about to vote for him under any circumstances, so he had nothing to lose by doing the right thing. Instead what issued forth from his campaign office was mush, and Gore himself seemed to have nothing of consequence to say. Another chance to stand up and deliver came when Pat Buchanan's muddled opinions about the Allied war against Hitler made headlines. Buchanan ought to be an inviting target for any Democrat, but again Gore remained seated and silent. The task of defending Western civilization was left instead to Donald Trump. In both instances, the cautious, corporatized Gore campaign let slip an opportunity to define the vice president as the leader of his party and the defender of democratic values. Clearly, the vice president needs better advice. Unless he refreshes his organization with some new and daring leadership, he may well end up losing the nomination and watching his corporate handlers return to their usual occupation -- making money.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon | |||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
