I have heard the word on AD that Kerry is different then Gore and Clinton, and whatever mistakes Clinton and Gore made, Kerry would never.

But today in Florida, Bill "the come back kid" Clinton is out reaching for the undecided vote:


On Sunday Gore had this to say:
(SIDE NOTE: I am always weary around people who claim to want a separation of church and state, and then attend churches to get votes. )

With this in mind, plus the remaining speeches these two men may give over the week and into next Tuesday, let's debate:

1. Does Kerry need Clinton and Gore drumming up votes?
   
2. Will this be effective for the undecided in swing states?
   
3. Gore tried to distance himself from Clinton during his run in 2000, was this distance more effective for Gore or is Clinton more effective?
   
4. Who will draw the largest crowd: Clinton, Gore, Cher, or Rosie?

I'm far from being any sort of expert on this issue, but it occurs to me to wonder if there is anything bad about being able to rally the support of a former president of the USA?

Is GW Bush able to do the same thing?

a. Does Kerry need Clinton and Gore drumming up votes?

As close as the election seems to be, I don’t think using the word “save” in the title has any relevance to either candidate.

In a close race, Clinton and Gore are resources to be uses. The Republicans have used Zell Miller in the South, Arnold Schwarzenegger will stump for Bush in Ohio this week and Rudy Giuliani is on the campaign trail for Bush.

Surrogates have been part of the picture in every election I can remember, including this one.

Two words “resources” and “surrogates” answer your question.

c. Gore tried to distance himself from Clinton during his run in 2000, was this distance more effective for Gore or is Clinton more effective?

Gore did distance himself from Clinton. His choice of Lieberman, a Democrat who criticized Clinton, was part of this strategy. I have heard a number of pundits question Gore’s decision not to use Clinton more.



Good point moif.

George W. Bush has no such option. Gerald Ford and Bush's father are the only two still living. Both, if you use reelection defeat as a standard, had failed presidencies. When Reagan died, Bush tried to wrap the 'miscommunicator" in the "great communicators" mantle. It didn't work. Nancy Reagan and Ron Reagan have both opposed Bush on full federal funding for stem cell research. Although Nancy Reagan has endorsed Bush, it's been lunewarm and she chose send a message rather than appear at the RNC.

Bush has no Clinton equivalent in his arsenal.

Edited for clarity and to add Giuliani's name.

Not really. I think kerrys in good shape for the presidential election with or without Clinton, considering he's pretty much has his hands on Penn., the biggest of the big three.

I don't think it will hurt. Clinton, apparently, is popular among the African american crowd, and even though Kerry will win the black vote by a big margin a lot of evangelical blacks are iffy about him because of his social policies. Clinton could bring them back.

Clinton NOW is more effective. The public has long forgotten the turbulence of the perjury accusations. Gore could understandably want to distance himself from that when he was running.

Clinton, easy.

1.)Not any more than the president needs Schwarzenegger or Rudy Giuliani every time he turns around.

3.)The fact that Gore distanced himself from Clinton due to the whole Monica thing was a key factor in his losing in my opinion. Clinton is a controversial president, but he's a heck of a fundraiser. Gore's problem was that he didn't stand for anything like Clinton did. Clinton knew who hated him and who liked him and didn't care to appease those who had a negative view of him. Gore made a really bad mistake in cutting him out from the campaign.

4.)Clinton will definitely draw the biggest crowds. He's a charasmatic individual, a proven fundraiser, and a former president to boot. By comparing any econmic numbers from when he was president to the current time, he can't miss in effectively criticizing the president.

I think Clinton can help Kerry out. Can he help enough to matter? Maybe.

Clinton did looked tired at his appearance yesterday. His surgery certainly is still affecting him . This will probably help Kerry even more, with the sympathetic Clinton taking to the stump.

Key word here is ‘drumming’. There are still more registered Dems than Reps so just getting the them out to vote could be the key to the election, I’m sure we’ll see a record number of voters (by percent). And if I had to choose a poster boy to rally the Dems to the polls you couldn’t pick a better cheer leader than Willy.

I think Gore could possibly hurt Kerry, he just needs to go away. He still looks awkward when speaking and his message is often equally as awkward.

Does Kerry need Clinton and Gore drumming up votes?

It certainly won't hurt at all. Clinton is still enormously popular with the Democrats, and while Gore is less-so, he can still be effective at times like these.

Will this be effective for the undecided in swing states?

I think so. At least in terms of energizing the base, in order to get them out to the polls next Tuesday. The more registered voters they can turn out to actually vote, the better.

Gore tried to distance himself from Clinton during his run in 2000, was this distance more effective for Gore or is Clinton more effective?

Gore distanced himself for two reasons: 1, The Monica Lewinski scandal and subsequent impeachment of Clinton were still fairly fresh. 2, Gore wanted to show he was his own man, and not just Clinton's water boy. I think he made a mistake in not allowing Clinton to campaign for him, but it was his decision to make.

Now that the scandal has receded to distant memory for most, Clinton will surely be able to help Kerry, if only by reminding voters of better economic times, as compared to the current administration. This may help swing some of the "undecideds".

Who will draw the largest crowd: Clinton, Gore, Cher, or Rosie?

Clinton by far. Let's face it, whether you like him or not, Clinton is still the "rock star" of the Democratic party. He will continue to draw crowds for campaign events for years to come.

What presidential campaign hasn't at one time or another resorted to former presidents, celebrities, athletes and others to inject some "star power" into the race? If Ronald Reagan were alive and free of the Alzheimer's that ravished his later life, I'm certain he'd be doing what he could to ensure Bush wins next Tuesday.

Don't blame Kerry if he choses to ask Clinton and Gore to stand up for him. Even if they aren't all that warm and fuzzy personally, they still will publicly back a Democrat over a Republican. There just ain't that many Zell Millers out there on either side.

And speaking of star power, this week both Kerry and Bush will be visiting Columbus, Ohio (again). This time Bush will be accompanied by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger while Kerry will have Bruce Springsteen by his side.

The Terminator vs. The Boss... ...well, I like Arnold's movies more than I like Bruce's music, but I prefer Springsteen's politics over Schwarzenegger's.

Maybe I'll just stay home and see if there's anything good on television.

Possibly, to combat a certain amount of fatalism that may have pervaded the party. For an example, see the somewhat premature link in the Democratic forum about why Kerry lost the election...

Yes, Clinton's presence is a reminder that times weren't always this bad and that there was a time when bi-partisanship was found in the halls of Congress.

Hindsight is allegedly 20/20; Gore thought distancing himself from Clinton was going to help defuse the character aspersions cast on him by association with the President. I don't think it helped Gore at all.

But Clinton's problems are not Kerry's problems. Kerry is a very serious person who needs, if anything, to lighten up a little but not too much. Clinton can be playful and effective, because he's not the one running for office.

Bill Clinton, hands down.

But George W. Bush could have a former president at his side speaking for him as well...what about his dad? Isn't it interesting that his father isn't stumping for him at all? His health could handle it; he parachuted out of a plane on his birthday this year. Could it be because he doesn't agree with his son at all?

PE, that's a great observation. I think it deserves a thread of its own, but I don't want to start it up -- gotta get busy on other things.

Clinton is the rock star. He's helping Kerry get this one.