2008 is the new 2000, but more so
Written by Stephen on January 17th, 2006Part of the reason 2000 was such a great year to jump into politics because both parties had meaningful primaries, even though Gore was Clinton part III for the Democrats. 2008 is going to be that times 10, without an heir apparent in either party.
With that in mind, I dug up these WaPo stories written in 1998 looking at the 2000 race. Some interesting things here. See if you can guess the candidates from these descriptions and whether they were “Too Serious to Ignore,” “Running for Running Mate,” or a “Shot in the Dark”. (Answers below the fold)
1. “First, there’s the plaid shirt problem. Second, there is the controversy surrounding the fabulous wealth he has amassed through friends and political connections. And third, he lost big in 1996.”
2. “Although largely associated with fiscal issues, the House budget committee chairman has pleasantly surprised social conservatives with his talk of faith-based solutions and his “personal relationship with God.”
3. “He is an ardent promoter of home-schooling, random drug testing and term limits and shows no reluctance to employ a heart-wrenching account of his wife’s own difficult birth to prove his conservative bona fides on abortion.”
4. “[He] has mastered the dual roles of public office: a folksy, tobacco-chewing, truck-driving everyman, and the polished inside operator who knows how to outflank his own party leaders.”
5. “Once in a while, the … senator scores a win, including raising the minimum wage, banning gifts to lawmakers and establishing mental health coverage in insurance plans. Last summer, [he] embarked on a poverty tour of the South, tracing the path of the late Robert F. Kennedy. The goal, he said, was to draw attention to children and families still left behind.”
6. “[He] is a handsome Vietnam vet with a healthy appetite for attention. And like Bob Kerrey, he has tempered his liberal tendencies to adjust to the national mood.”
7. “[H]is political skills were honed long before his arrival at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He ran his father’s gubernatorial campaigns.”
Part of the reason 2000 was such a great year to jump into politics because both parties had meaningful primaries, even though Gore was Clinton part III for the Democrats. 2008 is going to be that times 10, without an heir apparent in either party.
This thought was prompted when I found two WaPo stories written in 1998 looking at the 2000 race. See if you can guess the then potential candidates from these descriptions and whether they were “Too Serious to Ignore,” “Running for Running Mate,” or a “Shot in the Dark”. (Answers below the fold)
1. “First, there’s the plaid shirt problem. Second, there is the controversy surrounding the fabulous wealth he has amassed through friends and political connections. And third, he lost big in 1996.”
2. “Although largely associated with fiscal issues, the House budget committee chairman has pleasantly surprised social conservatives with his talk of faith-based solutions and his “personal relationship with God.”
3. “He is an ardent promoter of home-schooling, random drug testing and term limits and shows no reluctance to employ a heart-wrenching account of his wife’s own difficult birth to prove his conservative bona fides on abortion.”
4. “[He] has mastered the dual roles of public office: a folksy, tobacco-chewing, truck-driving everyman, and the polished inside operator who knows how to outflank his own party leaders.”
5. “Once in a while, the … senator scores a win, including raising the minimum wage, banning gifts to lawmakers and establishing mental health coverage in insurance plans. Last summer, [he] embarked on a poverty tour of the South, tracing the path of the late Robert F. Kennedy. The goal, he said, was to draw attention to children and families still left behind.”
6. “[He] is a handsome Vietnam vet with a healthy appetite for attention. And like Bob Kerrey, he has tempered his liberal tendencies to adjust to the national mood.”
7. “[H]is political skills were honed long before his arrival at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He ran his father’s gubernatorial campaigns.”
1. Lamar Alexander, Too Serious to Ignore
2. John Kasich, Running for Running Mate
3. John Ashcroft, Shot in the Dark
4. Fred Thompson, Shot in the Dark
5. Paul Wellstone, Shot in the Dark
6. John Kerry, Running for Running Mate
7. Andrew Cuomo, Running for Running Mate
18
AM
2000? That one (at least on the GOP side) was over before it began.
I think when you wrote “2000″ in the first clause of the first sentence above, you meant “1992.”
18
AM
I got 4, 6 and 7 right. The only one that I got immediately was 7.
18
PM
I like John Kasich, but his show on Fox is dreadfully painful to watch!! The only two I didn’t get right were Lamar Alexander and Fred Thompson.
It’s amazing that only six years has gone by and you don’t hear much from any of these individuals. Of course, one is dead and some others are dead politically, but this group isn’t an all-star list any longer.
18
PM
I was struck by how some of the names still bubble up… Fred Thompson has been mentioned in passing by folks here, Guiliani is still a contender, The Hotline treats Pataki and Gingrich seriously, Gore and Kerry are talking about gearing up again. The Fred Thompson description also struck me as similar to the George Allen descriptions. (Both men chew.)