The Daily Background

Frank Rich makes the obvious conclusion. E&P (NYT has done that god-awful Times Select bullshit on the column).

The main reason: Unlike Hillary (”a weak candidate”) he has shown leadership and not been afraid to stand out front on an issue. Where once Hillary “inspired passions pro and con, now she often induces apathy,” Rich writes. “Her most excited constituency seems to be the right-wing pundits who still hope to make a killing with books excoriating her.”

But Rich does not point to the global warming issue to hail Gore’s toughness — in fact, he finds the new Gore movie about that subject a little too much of a campaign ad. What he really finds most positive about Gore is that he raised an alarm about an Iraq invasion six months before it took place — and then was early to criticize the White House’s handling of the war later. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has acted paralyzed.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate Hillary, but I do pretty much agree with Rich’s assessment. I’d rather have Gore in the White House than Hilary. Of course, it’s the year 2006, and that’s not a choice that needs to be made right now.

Filed under: Presidential election, Z-TDB Blog