I see here that Mark Halperin — not to be confused with the great Mark Helprin — has been talking Democratic presidential politics: and saying that Al Gore would have the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
Two thoughts: Hillary would then be running as the poorer candidate, right? Or have she and Bill together beaten out Al in the moolah department?
Do Hillary and Bill pool their money? Like, you know — John and Jane Doe?
Thought No. 2.: I don’t have many questions about recent American politics, frankly. If I had the chance to interview Bill Clinton, I really don’t know what I’d ask him. I know what all his answers would be. “Why did you commute the sentence of Susan Rosenberg?” (a Weather Underground terrorist). He’d BS his way through that one, same as all the others.
But there is a mystery surrounding Al Gore: Why didn’t he run for president in 2004? He had won more votes than Bush in 2000. His side thought him robbed. There were bumper stickers saying “Reelect Gore.” I think he would have been renominated by his party. The eventual nominee, John Kerry, lost to Bush by a few tens of thousands of votes in Ohio.
How would Gore have fared? I shudder to think . . .