Would Al Gore Have Been A Better President Than Clinton?

[THUNDER HANDS]

Poll question: Would Al Gore Have Been A Better President Than Clinton?

If he had taken his rightful place in the White House and gotten to serve two full terms like Clinton did, would he have been a more effective president than Clinton?

On a side note, what would a Gore presidency have done to the Clinton legacy - since I believe Bush is going to make Clinton look that much better (by virtue of being totally incompetent) would a man with brains and reason and no sex scandals been able to accomplish more - and therefore diminish the legacy of Clinton?

[Snoggera]

1. Al Gore is much more of a populist

and environmentalist.

[daa]

7. Aside from his one weakness

Bill Clinton was a truly unique president. He kicked ass on total repuke congresses, created 22 million jobs, had the budget in surplus. Balancing the budget was not a popular thing for a Democrat to do, and yet he did it. History will be far kinder to Bill Clinton than current perceptions by right windg hate radio. Clinton created MORE jobs than Saint Ronnie and asshole Bush hasnt' created one fucking job.

[AP]

11. Where do people get this impression? Gore was a big deregulator and Wall

St appeaser.

[Fenris]

2. Al Gore or his modern alter ego, Eugene V. Gore?

I think if he had been elected, he would have been like Clinton, but without the charisma. I like his new persona. Fiery. Populist.

Still, President Gore would have been 200000000000000000000000x better than President Bush.

[clydefrand]

4. Agreed! Just about anyone would be better suited

for President than the chimp.

[PATRICK]

17. Except

he would have been more easily "Carterized". Where would the government and media support come from to enable his decisions? It would have been a tough, grinding and perhaps dismal road to hoe and no one ever would realize how much better off we were. 911 and huge deficits would have been an incredible fantasy and they would have tried again with some Reagan type of "good feeling' uniter while gridlock and gerrymandering would make the ultimate monster worse.

Still, it might have been the death knell of the Bush dynasty. Maybe. It might have been the true defeat of terrorists and the forces behind them and the democratization of globalization, more peace, less oppression, a more inexorable juggernaut of progress.

Gore himself however has shown himself prone to political defeat and disaster, his fault or not. Too slow on the uptake(who isn't) too maladroit at controlling the political process. To this day Dukakis doesn't really get his own political shortcomings.

In a better world, one we hope to build, it would be a safe place for great men like Gore to shine, but not yet. It may seem a grim sentiment, but I think Kerry as a pillar of political strength is maybe exactly what we need at this stage.

[Cheswick2.0]

5. I saw Gore many times in 2000... the fiery populist was the Al Gore I met

I don't know so many of you missed it.

[Career Prole]

3. I think the Gore we see today and the Gore that would have been

are quite a bit different. I voted for him then, but he didn't have the fire in his belly. I think he's got the fire now after seeing the election stolen from him and then witnessing the perversion which is the bush* presidency.
If he'd gotten the presidency in 2000 he wouldn't be the angry man I like now.

[Guaranteed]

16. Yup. He's changed, for the better.

Bushco woke him up.

[Dover]

6. Gore might not have been as "popular", but he would be unlikely to have

had a Monicagate problem. But of course it's all speculation.

I do think the "new" Al Gore is much improved and a bit wiser, and I hope he will continue to stay involved.

[kaitykaity]

8. I wonder what "scandals" the hate mongers would have

dreamed up about him?

I always liked Al Gore, from his first run for president
in 1988. Then I read "Earth in the Balance" and from that
I never believed Gore was "wooden" or "had no personality."

He's a policy wonk, and he'd know the workings of his
government inside and out.

So I voted better, because Al is not a ladies' man. He's
a one-woman man, and that woman, unfortunately, is Tipper.
(I haven't liked her ever since her work on the music
censorship issue and the PMRC.)

[maggrwaggr]

9. back in 92 I wanted a Gore/Clinton ticket

instead, I got the reverse. Oh well it was still better than Poppy.

But yes,I've always liked Gore a lot. Wasn't a big Clinton fan.

[Kahuna]

10. So did I. I think Gore would have been a better president.

It's too late now. Al Gore. The best president we never had. :cry:

[hyphenate]

12. Al Gore's Presidency

would have been as good as Clinton's with one exception: it would have been much, much more boring. :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Undoubtedly. He sure as hell couldn't have been worse.

Clinton wasn't even "moderately" liberal. And, he seems to have moved even further right since he left office.

Clinton did a lot of damage to the Democratic party.

[bhunt70]

14. I don't think so at all.

[Piperay]

15. No, it doesn't get

any better than Clinton. Clinton was a good President but I can't deny that he was in the right place at the right time economy wise and Gore wouldn't have been as lucky.