Former president, vice president can’t agree onwhich one blew it
The election in November was riveting as millions of peoplewatched ballot counting in Florida, wondering who would win thepresidency. Some were shocked with the final result: Al Gore losingthe election to a manwho, many say, has no real intelligence. Well, it seems as thoughthis rejection from the American people was too much for Gore. A fewdays after this history-making reversal of power, Gore confrontedBill Clinton with at least six years of repressed emotion.
According to The Washington Post, the meeting between Clinton andGore, who have barely spoken over the past year, lasted more than anhour, during which Gore voiced his resentments to Clinton — usingwhat aides described as “uncommonly blunt language.” Gore toldClinton that the sex scandals and low personal-approval ratings wereobstacles he was unable to overcome in his campaign.
So, it looks as if Gore is under the impression that Clinton’svarious scandals during their two terms was the reason he lost thepresidency. Can you really blame him? I’m sure that when Gore agreedto run with Clinton, he had no idea he would watch his president denyrumors of an affair with a 20-year-old intern. And Gore stoodpowerless as Clinton’s lies almost cost them their positions in theWhite House (no pun intended).
Clinton, however, did not agree with Gore’s assessment of thesituation. At the infamous meeting, Clinton responded with equalforce, telling Gore the loss was due to his failure to run on theClinton-Gore administration’s economic record. One of Clinton’s aidestold reporters that Clinton was mystified, even angered at times, notunderstanding why Gore refused to run on the strong economy and otherissues Clinton felt they both deserved credit for.
Also, Clinton probably resented Gore taking all the credit for”inventing the Internet.”
So who’s at fault? Did Gore lose the election because of Clinton’sscandals and poor personal ratings, or did Gore lose the election dueto his own shortcomings?
I asked SDSU students to help answer this question.
Public administration senior Cameron Murphy said, “I don’t feelthe scandal affected Gore politically. Former Vice-President Gore hasdefinitely proved himself as a leader; he just buckled under thepressure.”
Felicia Bermudez, a political science senior, agreed. “No,Clinton’s scandal did not cause Gore’s loss. Gore still raised arecord amount of money.” And, in respect to Gore not running on theClinton administration’s successes, she told me that “it wouldn’thave carried any weight considering little Bush was hanging onto bigBush’s coattails.”
Of the 20 students I spoke with, all felt Clinton had nothing todo with Gore’s failure to secure the presidency. Some students feltGore might have had a better outcome if he had reminded the votersabout the huge achievements of the Clinton-Gore years, especially thestunning economic growth.
Clinton is known for being a masterful speaker, and even if he didcause Gore’s loss, he would have been able to talk his way out of anyblame. My peers don’t feel that his indiscretions were the cause ofGore’s defeat and neither do most politicians. The Washington Postsaid Clinton supporters believe that, for Gore, Clinton was less of apolitical issue and more of an emotional hurdle.
In the future, Gore should just use Hillary as inspiration; shehas proven to be an expert at repressing emotion and a genius atkeeping quiet.
==Karen Roessing is an English senior. Send e-mail to daletter2000@hotmail.com.
–This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheDaily Aztec.
