Unlike Barack Obama, Bill Clinton does not believe in "the fierce
urgency of now." The former President has an exquisitely languid sense
of how political time unfurls. He understands that those moments the
political community, especially the media, considers urgent usually
aren't. He has seen his own election and re-election—and completing his
second term—pronounced "impossible" and lived to tell the tale. He
remembers that in spring 1992 he had pretty much won the Democratic
nomination but was considered a dead man walking, running third behind
Bush the Elder and Ross Perot. He knows that April is the silly season
in presidential politics, the moment when candidates involved in a
bruising primary battle seem weakest and bloodied, as both Hillary
Clinton and Obama do now. It's the moment when pundits demand
action—"Drop out, Hillary!"—and propound foolish theories.
As much as I would like to, I can't make myself believe that this
campaign has hurt the democrats much. Rev Wright hurt Obama, bad, but
wouldn't the scandal have hurt him more in the General Election? If Hillary
somehow wins, then yes, the primary will have hurt the Democrats, since
it will have somehow produced the wrong candidate. Klein goes on to
finish the above quote with this:And so I'm
rather embarrassed to admit that I'm slouching toward, well, a theory:
if this race continues to slide downhill, the answer to the Democratic
Party's dilemma may turn out to be Al Gore.
I am starting to fear a late entry like Gore. Last week I wondered what happened to Bradley, and then I thought that the guy I really miss is Paul Tsongas. But are those the two who we should worry about? Just how popular IS Gore? And what will the donors think? Beats me.





