Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Saturday, Oct. 23, 2004
Sen. John Kerry’s decision to have Bill Clinton and Al Gore campaign for him could cost him the election if recent history is any indication.
Clinton’s campaign appearances and the disastrous mismanagement of handpicked party boss Terry McAuliffe led to the Democrats’ unprecedented losses in the midterm elections of 2002. Among the Democrat casualties of the Clinton machine: New York gubernatorial nominee Carl McCall and Florida gubernatorial nominee Bill McBride.
Then his “assistance” backfired and helped oust California Gov. Gray Davis last year.
Gore’s record of harmful “help” is almost as abysmal. Remember less than a year ago when everyone had all but crowned Howard Dean as the Democrat presidential nominee? Then Gore endorsed him.
“I actually do think the endorsement of Al Gore began the decline,” Dean told CNN in February.
Despite his own former boss’ similar taint, ex-Clintonista Paul Begala sniped to the New York Times, “I suppose people are going to be running away from Al Gore the way the devil runs away from holy water.”
So why isn’t Kerry running from Clinton and Gore as hastily as he’s trying to flee his Senate record? The aloof Massachusetts blueblood does not have a stranglehold on the black vote and thinks his emissaries can deliver it for him.
The ex-president's campaigning is "less likely to mobilize anti-Clinton sentiment than it is to mobilize Democratic constituencies like African-Americans, who've been lagging in their enthusiasm for John Kerry," said Doug Schoen, who was Clinton's presidential pollster.
The Associated Press noted Friday: "Still, all the talk about Clinton's allure with black voters may be overstated. His share of the black vote - 83 percent in 1992 and 84 percent in 1996 - was less than that of every other Democratic presidential contender since John F. Kennedy."