Editorial: Gore’s Shadow Organization Or Edwards’ Secret Attack On Hillary?

Editorial by: 08 Guru JW & 08 Guru AsC 

With all the buzz about Al Gore lately, we’re interested in delving a bit deeper into the issue.

Timeline…

• Thursday, April 19 - James Carville confidently states that “Gore will run again,” while speaking at Tulane University.  Bill Clinton appears on Larry King and talks about the prospect of Al Gore running for president
• Saturday, April 21 - The Telegraph publishes an article claiming that Gore’s campaign team is assembling in secret.  Drudge links to the article, which is now receiving widespread attention.

What’s going on…?

Well, for starters we believe that the Clinton team was taking an opportunity to further politicize Gore by referring to him as a candidate in such strong terms.  Quietly reminding people that Gore is a candidate, could, should he decide to enter, help undermine the authenticity of his campaign.  So, the Clinton campaign’s actions are understandable and explanable.

Following remarks like the aforementioned, it is then also expected that the press will seize the opportunity to discuss the possibility of a Gore campaign.  Indeed, they did and it is still a topic of discussion today. 

What doesn’t fit so well into this picture is the Telegraph article that really fueled the recent buzz about Gore.  If you read between the lines, the article seems less about a Gore candidacy and more about the ‘unelectability’ of Hillary Clinton.

“Vice-President Gore’s allies believe that Hillary Clinton, 59, the front-runner, is unable to win the presidency.”

Despite the article’s title, “Gore campaign team assembles in secret,” Tim Shipman only provided the following to substantiate his claim:

1) A “meeting” that took place in Boston two months ago

Two months ago, a former Gore aide, Elaine Kamarck, convened a group of former aides in Boston to consider the possibilities of a Gore campaign.

The reference to a meeting that occured two months ago, without any additional information is basically meaningless.  This is filler.  Why didn’t the Telegraphtry to contact Karmack for a quote or information about this supposed meeting.  Also, isn’t it a bit strange that this meeting, which is claimed to have taken place in February, was not referenced in the Telegraph’s article outlining a case for a Gore campaign from February?

2) The fact that Michael Whouley hasn’t signed up with a campaign yet

Among the senior officials not yet committed is Michael Whouley, who was national field director for the successful Clinton-Gore 1992 presidential campaign, national campaign manager for Mr Gore when he stood for re-election as vice-president in 1996, and then a senior adviser to Mr Gore in 2000.

Again, is this really enough to substantiate the claim of the article?  There are plenty of top strategists and Gore allies that are currently available other than Michael Whouley; other people that were and are much closer to Gore.  Why not mention their names?

3) A former Gore staffer who is currently working for the Edwards campaign 

The second aide approached by Vice-President Gore’s allies said: “There is no love lost between Gore and Hillary. They don’t think she can win and they’re probably right. If Gore runs, he’s got a really good chance of getting the nomination. And he has a good chance of pulling off the election, too.”

The former aide, who has himself signed up with Sen Edwards, said: “The question is: where have all the Kerry people gone? The answer for most of them is nowhere. Now ask yourself why.”

Yes, the Telegraph’s principle source for this article is a current member of the Edwards staff, who used this opportunity to talk about how unelectable Hillary Clinton is.  Are you really going to believe that a former Gore aide who is supposedly assembling a team in secret approaches someone who is currently working for Edwards to discuss availability?  This just seems odd. Consider this either/or: Either, this source is a high-ranking advisor in which case the Gore people would have known about the source’s employment with the Edwards campaign OR the source is a low level staffer, in which case his input on this matter is essentially meaningless.

We are failing to see how this article is really about Gore’s shadow campaign team.  Perhaps, it is the case that the article was fueled by the Edwards camp in order to undermine Sen. Clinton?  As of late, the Edwards campaign has been discussing electability and of course, presenting John Edwards as the candidate with the most electability.  Having an article out there that reminds people about Hilary Clinton’s electability issues could help John Edwards.  Perhaps the Telegraph was used because American papers probably would not have published such a claim without a bit more information and/or more credible sources?  Is this tabloid journalism?

If the Telegraph really wanted to make the case that Gore’s team was assembling in secret, perhaps they should have researched, contacted and/or commented on the following top former Gore staffers:

Some Former Gore Folk Seemingly Available… 

• Donna Brazile, Campaign Manager for Gore/Lieberman 2000 - Currently running  & Associates LLC, a Washington D.C. based consulting firm.
• Roy Neel, Chief of Staff to Gore while he was a senator and vice-president, Campaign Manager for Howard Dean - Currently Chairman of the Jackson Group and Director of Blue State Digital.  He was also recently employed by Gore as an advisor (maybe cheif of staff?)
• Craig T. Smith- Field Director for Clinton/Gore 92, Political Director for Clinton/Gore 96, Campaign Manager for Gore 2000, Campaign Director and Senior Advisor for Lieberman 2004 - Currently an Advisory Board Memberat mCapitol Management.
• Michael Whouley, National Field Director for Clinton/Gore 92, National Campaign Manager for Al Gore (1996), Senior Advisor (2000), Field organizer for Kerry/Edwards 2004 - Currently at Dewey Square Group, which he founded.
• Eric Kleinfeld, General counsel for Gore/Lieberman 2000, General Counsel for Dean For American 2004 - Currently a partner at Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht & MacKinnon.
• Lyn Utrecht, Counsel to Clinton/Gore 92 & 96, Counsel to Gore/Lieberman 2000, Counsel to Edwards/Dean/Graham/Moseley Braun primary campaigns 2004, Represented Hillary Rodham Clinton for US Senate Committee - Currently a partner at Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht & MacKinnon.
• Brian Foucart, Deputy Chief Operating Officer for Clinton/Gore 96, Chief Financial Officer for Gore 2000, Chief Financial Officer & Assistant Treasurer for Lieberman 2004 - Curerntly available
• Ron Klain
• Jose Villarreal
• Tina Flourny
• Elaine Kamarck
• Tom McMahon
• Tricia Enright

We think it’s pretty clear that the Telegraph article wasn’t really about Gore.  It seems to be a shot at the Clinton campaign from the Edwards folks.  The bigger questions that remain are: how involved the Edwards people were in the publication of this article.  Did they start coming out of the woodwork after Bill Clinton and James Carville brought the Gore discussion back up?  Did Tim Shipman contact them or was he contacted?  Given the overall lack of substance of this article, we think it’s safe to say that it was put together rather hastily in order to ride the wave of recent Gore coverage.

These are just our observations.