A Bridge to the 21st Century

[SLCer]

CLINTON LEADS BRADLEY BY 15 IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
President looks for decisive blow with big primary win

Bill Clinton greets supporters at a Nashua rally back in December

Clinton definitely had his mojo heading into the New Hampshire primary and he felt confident the campaign would not only pull out a victory, but a pretty decisive one at that. The general consensus was, at the time, beating Bradley by 10 or more points there would almost certainly cripple his campaign and deliver the President the nomination well before spring, which, around the time of Bradley's surge in the fall, looked downright unlikely.

But with the wind at his back, positive press from his big Iowa win, and more and more undecideds breaking his way, Clinton looked pretty unstoppable entering late January. - A 21st Century Campaign (John Sasso)​

CLINTON HOLDS FINAL RALLY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
Thousands greet president inside and out local high school

"In two days, New Hampshire, we can make history. In two days, we can show the world, and our fellow citizens, that we are recommitting ourselves to a new, prosperous American 21st Century! In two days, we will be one step closer to envisioning what this journey has been all about. Together, New Hampshire, we can continue making America strong!"​

- Excerpt from Bill Clinton's speech two days before the New Hampshire primary.

​

BRADLEY ZIGZAGS ACROSS NEW HAMPSHIRE SEARCHING FOR VOTES
Campaign pushes ahead, despite struggles

"One thing that I love about New Hampshire is your independent spirit. You buck national trends and do your own thing. It's why I'm confident, tomorrow, when the polls close, we will have shocked the world! We will have done something the media and the party bigwigs never thought possible - we will win! We will carry New Hampshire, our campaign will begin anew and it won't end until we claim victory this November!" - Excerpt from Bill Bradley's speech one days before the New Hampshire primary
​

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY RESULTS

Dan Rather: Good evening and welcome to CBS' coverage of the 2000 New Hampshire primary. It is now 7:00 on the East Coast and polls have closed in most of the precincts around the state. Based on exit polls, CBS can say that when all the votes are counted, President Clinton will easily win the Democratic primary. On the Republican side, at this moment, we cannot define the race except to say that Senator John McCain holds what appears to be a solid lead on Governor George W. Bush.

For President Clinton, tonight's victory very well could lock up the nomination for a historical third time. It has to be demoralizing for Senator Bradley, who invested so much time and energy into this state and failed, ultimately it appears, to not only win - but even remain competitive.

On the Republican side, the fact John McCain leads in our initial counting has to be a concern for Governor Bush. They had hoped, maybe beyond hope with what the polls were showing, that this race would ultimately end here in New Hampshire. That does not, however, appear to be the case. Though I want to quantify that comment with the fact that we are characterizing tonight's race based on exit polls, not actual raw vote totals.

I am now joined by Bob Schieffer, who has pored over the exit poll numbers and he has some insight into why McCain is leading at this time. Bob?

Bob Schieffer: Well Dan, John McCain has built his lead, and potential victory, on the backs of independent voters. In fact, if the exit polls hold, George Bush will actually have won a plurality of Republican support over McCain, but because McCain has done so well among independent voters, and remember, New Hampshire is an open primary, he was able to erase Bush's lead among party voters and build a substantial overall lead on his own.

What this means is that if you're the Bush campaign, you've got to feel at least some displeasure in the fact that you're potentially losing tonight not because your own party, the nomination of which you are seeking, I might add, is voting against you - but other non-party members, maybe men and women who voted for Bill Clinton in '96, and plan on voting for him again this November, are the ones doing the damage here tonight.

Dan Rather: And what about Bill Clinton? How did he win here tonight?

Bob Schieffer: Well Bill Clinton won almost across the board. The most interesting numbers, and we'll display them on your screen in a second, is that 45% of those voters who voted in the Democratic Primary tonight do not believe President Clinton should seek a third term. Slam dunk, if you will, for Bill Bradley - right? Wrong. Of those 45% who do not believe Bill Clinton should seek a third term, more than half eventually ended up voting for Bill Clinton anyway. Go figure.

Dan Rather: I guess there's somethin' to say about being decisive on being indecisive.

Bob Schieffer: That's what it's looking like, Dan.

Dan Rather: We do have a call to make. It's official. John McCain has won New Hampshire. A huge victory for McCain - a gigantic victory, if you will. This recharges his campaign. This brings him back to life. George Bush now has to fight like this is the O.K. Corral because this one ain't going to be easy.

John McCain and Bill Clinton, early winners tonight in New Hampshire.​

MCCAIN & CLINTON VICTORIOUS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
GOP primary turned upside down

Final Results:

Democratic:

• Bill Clinton: 65%
• Bill Bradley: 34%

Republican:

• John McCain: 49%
• George W. Bush: 30%
• Steve Forbes: 13%
• Alan Keyes: 6%

BRADLEY HINTS AT ENDING CAMPAIGN
Disappointing finish leaves difficult path to nomination

Bill Bradley kisses his wife prior to his speech after losing the New Hampshire primary

"I've long believed in the Democratic principles. Though President Clinton and I have differing views on some important topics, rest assured those differences are minor compared to our differences with the Republican candidates. This election is about bringing America securely into the 21st Century and none of those Republicans, from George W. Bush to John McCain, have the right mindset and ideas to do just that. Their policies, their commitments, run in opposition of what has brought our country out of the depths of a major recession and restored us once again as the most expansive, established and successful economy on the face of this earth.

So, even though we have lost tonight and the future is uncertain, I know, in the end, whether it's President Clinton taking the Oath of Office, or myself, we will continue to chart a positive direction for this great country. I thank you for your votes and your support and inviting me into your homes and businesses and, in some instances, treating me like a member of your own family. This experience has been extraordinary and humbling. I am grateful that I was given the opportunity to work for your vote, to ask for your vote and I hope, when you cast your ballot for me today, and when you caucused for me in Iowa last month, you did so proudly - because I am so very proud to count you all as my supporters. God bless you. God bless New Hampshire. And God bless the United States of America!" - Excerpt from Bill Bradley's concession speech after the New Hampshire primary​

 

[SLCer]

BRADLEY ENDS CAMPAIGN
In speech to Bay Area Democrats, Bradley endorses Clinton

Senator Bradley faced long odds in California, with polls showing Clinton leading by at least 40 points there.

"This has been quite the experience. I am honored and blessed to have had the opportunity to campaign for the presidency of this great nation. Unfortunately, it wasn't meant to be and so, today, I announce that I will be suspending my campaign and endorsing President Clinton.

This is an important election. And though I am not my party's nominee, like I had hoped, I ask my supporters, many of whom I've had the great pleasure of meeting personally, to join me in working hard for our President so that we can continue prosperity well into the 21st Century.

Bill Clinton is the man to get the job done. I know this. It is time we put our differences aside and rally behind our nominee. But I think it's imperative that, even though this primary fight has ended, we still fight for Democratic values. We still fight for what has made our party the party of the working class, the party of women, and the party of minorities.

That fight has to continue, even as we transition to the general election. I hope, and expect, President Clinton will continue carrying the flame of Democratic principles and ideals into our battle with the Republicans later this fall. If he does, and I believe he will, we will have his back." - Excerpt from Bill Bradley's speech to California Democrats​

BRADLEY & CLINTON HOLD FIRST RALLY
The two show solidarity in Cleveland, Ohio

"I am so thankful to have the support of a great senator and a true patriot. This battle has been tough and Bill Bradley has been an amazing fighter for everything our party holds dear. We owe him a big debt of gratitude for his service in the Senate and I hope, when we win this November, I can count on Bill Bradley to help continue that fight as we move further into the 21st Century!

Ohio, both of us come here today because this state exemplifies the recovery we have seen the last eight years. When I was running for president back in 1992, Ohio's unemployment rate saw a high of 7.5%. Today, the unemployment rate is at 4% - the lowest here it's been since World War II.

That's progress. That's what we're fighting to continue. This is what the 2000 election is all about. We can't go back, Ohio, to the failed policies of the Republican Party. We have fought too hard and accomplished too much to give way to the old, failed economic policies that drove up unemployment, drove down wages and left us an economically depressed nation.

Ohio, please join me in continuing this fight, to continue advancing the cause of economic freedom for all Americans. Join me in bringing America into the 21st Century and when we win this November, and we will, I will continue fighting every step of the way for you - average, every day Americans who are working hard every single day to claim a piece of that American Dream. Thank you, Ohio. Thank you Senator Bradley. Thank you. Thank you. God bless you all and of course, God Bless the United States of America!" - Excerpt from Bill Clinton's February 21st speech in Cleveland, Ohio​

​

 

[SLCer]

The basic foundation for the 2000 campaign was to hit swing states early and often, flooding areas with positive ads about Clinton's record and negative attack ads that helped define both John McCain and George W. Bush as subscribing to the same failed policies of the past.

So, in March, Clinton zigzagged across the country, hitting Ohio, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado campaigning on the growing economy and the need to sustain it heading further into the 21st Century. In fact, the campaign wording certainly revolved around the idea of a new bridge to the 21st Century and making it another American Century.

At the start of the campaign, polls were not very favorable to Clinton. The idea that economic depression was on the way if Bush won just didn't stick with the American people. This election, the fact there was no international crisis or internal crisis, hurt Clinton's chances. A growing number of Americans looked at it as a power grab and not necessarily a needed choice to help continue steering the country in the right direction, as was the case when FDR broke precedent and ran for a third term.

Worse, Clinton Fatigue was becoming a serious liability for the President. Americans approved of the job he was doing, and that certainly gave him a fighting chance in this election, but they weren't sold on another four years, especially if it was a lot like the last four years. To win, to actually stay competitive with Governor Bush in the general, Clinton had to regain the trust of the American people. That wouldn't be easy. - A 21st Century Campaign (John Sasso)

MARCH, 2000 - BUSH OPENS UP 11 POINT LEAD NATIONALLY
Super Tuesday helps cement Bush as presumptive nominee

Texas Governor George W. Bush closes in on GOP nomination and has grown his lead nationally over President Clinton.

ABC News Poll (March 9th-10th, 2000):

"If the 2000 presidential election were being held today, for whom of the following would you vote...?"

• George W. Bush: 52%
• Bill Clinton: 41%
• Other/Unknown: 7%

CONSUMER ADVOCATE MIGHT RUN FOR PRESIDENT
In interview with NPR, Ralph Nader says there's not a lick of difference between Clinton & Bush

Bob Edwards: Now you haven't announced yet whether you'll officially seek the presidency, or at least accept the nomination by, say, the Greens, as their candidate - but, but you're clearly open to the idea. Is that right?

Ralph Nader: As I sit here and watch both President Clinton and Governor Bush talk about their America, I can't help but realize how similar their America is and it's not something, I think, you know, not something a great deal of us here in the Real America want.

Bob Edwards: Real America? What do you mean by that?

Ralph Nader: Well let's be honest, the politicians today care about only one thing and it's not the well-being of you and I. We're essentially their pawns to win elections, gain power and game the system for the men and corporations who line their pockets with money. I don't know about you, Bob, but that's not the America I want to live in.

Bob Edwards: And what would be a Ralph Nader America?

Ralph Nader: Well, for one, if I was elected president, I would not be beholden to special interests. They're corrupting our political system and sucking the life out of our elected officials. You know, when I was growing up, you might not have agreed with a great deal of politicians, but you knew where they stood and you knew the driving force behind their campaigns, whether you ultimately agreed with their ideas or not, was the inherent good of the country. Not anymore. Today, our politicians aren't working for us, whether they be Democrat or Republican - Bill Clinton or George Bush. They're all the same players playing the same game. And you know what? In the end, we lose.

Bob Edwards: So, so, you don't think President Clinton is any different than George W. Bush in any regard?

Ralph Nader: Marginally, but on key issues, peace, prosperity, the economy, social safety nets - no, Bill Clinton is no different than George W. Bush. Look at it this way, President Clinton has supported, signed into law, an economic trade agreement, NAFTA, that was championed by George W. Bush's father, former President George Bush, an agreement, a treaty, that even conservatives like Ross Perot believe will do more harm to our economy than good. It will gut, has gutted, rustbelt cities, ruined manufacturing in this country and for what? To placate the CEOs. Bush, Clinton, they're both the same, even though they masquerade around as different candidates.

Bob Edwards: So, so, if Bush wins, his presidency will mirror Clinton's?

Ralph Nader: There might be a bit more religious bent to it, but yeah, pretty much. I don't foresee any radical differences. We'll still have economic policies that favor the rich at the expense of the poor, we'll still have a foreign policy that's guided by international imperialism instead of diplomacy and we'll still have a president here domestically that continues down the right-of-center path that this country has been on since the Reagan years. You know, I've heard it before, and I believe it's true, Bill Clinton has been the best Republican president we've had since Lincoln. And that's not necessarily a compliment.

Bob Edwards: Some Democrats fear that, you know, you'll split the liberal vote, cost the President votes in November and throw the election to the Republicans. Any concern there?

Ralph Nader: No. I don't care what Democrats think. If Bill Clinton fears we'll steal liberal voters, well then, he better fight like hell to prove to them he's different than his opponent because from where I stand, I don't think there's a lick of difference between the two.

Bob Edwards: But - but what about on the Supreme Court? Don't you agree -

Ralph Nader: Our ideology won't be held hostage by an unknown Supreme Court. With Clinton's ideological bent, I wouldn't be surprised if he nominated a middle of the road justice who did nothing to advance the policies needed to further help those less advantaged.

Bob Edwards: Well, history has shown, the two justices appointed by Clinton, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, have consistently voted with the progressives on important issues, including abortion.

Ralph Nader: It's bigger than the Supreme Court, though. It has to be bigger than the Supreme Court. This is about fundamental change. Taking our country back from career politicians who do nothing to advance the causes of average Americans, Americans who are fighting, living pay check to pay check, just to get by. This President has done nothing to help the lower class in this country. He's done nothing to bring about true healthcare reform -

Bob Edwards: Well, he did try in the early days of his presidency.

Ralph Nader: And he utterly failed. So, in the end, the system we have today is no different than the system we had nine years ago. We need real change. We need real adjustment. We need a president committed to the values of long-time Democrats who brought radical change to America. Unfortunately, Democrats today are weak and don't really stand for anything. That's why Bill Clinton has to worry about losing liberal voters because he's given them no reason, no reason whatsoever, to come out and support his campaign. They were there in '92 with hope that he'd be their liberal savior and instead, we found ourselves in a Reagan fourth and fifth term. Well, what difference does it make if it's Bill Clinton or George Bush finishing out the sixth and seventh Reagan term? They both tap the same well for their ideas.​

​

 

[SLCer]

IT'S BUSH VERSUS CLINTON - AGAIN!
McCain ends campaign, but no endorsement yet

John McCain ended his presidential bid this week, though did not officially endorse Governor Bush

And so, by the end of March, the race had officially started. Texas Governor George W. Bush opened up a sizable lead early on President Clinton and looked to carry that lead into the summer. Having wrapped up his nomination, for the most part, after Super Tuesday, Bush's sights were set on Clinton and his campaign strategy was pretty clear: Clinton didn't have the moral fortitude to lead the nation for the next four years.

His campaign was going to be centered around bringing honor and dignity back to the White House. - BUCKLE UP! The Election 2000 Thriller (Larry J. Sabato)​

APRIL 2000 - BUSH RALLIES DAYTON, OHIO
Hits President on ethics

Campaigning in Dayton, Ohio Friday, Bush hit Clinton on questionable ethics and restoring honor back to the Oval Office.

"This election is going to be about whether we have a president the American people are proud of, or a president constantly forced to defend his questionable actions. This election is about bringing honor back to the Oval Office - allowing Americans to respect their president again!

For this country to succeed in the future, the American people must trust their leaders. I'm telling you right now, Dayton, you might not agree with me on every issue, but you'll know where I stand and you'll trust that I am doing it for the betterment of our country. That's leadership. That's what we need in the Oval Office again and I hope, come November, you'll be there with me to see this country regain its honor and bring about a better tomorrow. Thank you Ohio. God bless ya'll! And God Bless America!" - Excerpt from George W. Bush's speech to Dayton, Ohio on April 7th, 2000​

CLINTON SLAMS BUSH ECONOMICS IN FLORIDA
President claims Bush will undo all the good from the past eight years

"You know, I've met a lot of good, hardworking people over the last seven or so years I've served as President. It's been a great honor. I've heard their personal stories, listened about their struggles, and celebrated their triumphs. It's amazing how much the mood has changed in this country since I was working the campaign rope lines back in '92. A lot has changed. Much, if not all of it, good. We're stronger today than we were eight years ago. We're more respected today than were eight years ago. Yet, for the Republicans, for Governor Bush, it's still not good enough.

No, they want to send us back. They want to undo everything good we've accomplished these last eight years. You see, for whatever reason, and I'm as stumped as you, while the rest of this country has evolved from the failed economic policies of the Reagan Era, the Republican Party is still committed, still celebrating, that failed economic ideology. But worse, their new brand, their Bush brand, not only will evaporate all the progress we've seen on the budget, but many economists believe it will spiral the country right back into a recession - you know, the exact same policies his father pushed in the early 90s that nearly ruined our economy.

It's time the American people say enough! No more Bushes! No more Trickle Down Economics. It doesn't work! It hasn't worked! Ladies and gentlemen, what we've done the last eight years has and now we must put our foot down. George W. Bush is not good for the economy. This is the issue of our times, folks - whether or not we'll have a sustainable economy well into the 21st Century.

Bush won't talk about the economy because he knows he can't run on the economy. His plans, his economic advisers, are the same individuals who bought into the idea in the 1980s that somehow, against common sense, that tax cuts for the wealthy would stimulate the economy. It doesn't work. It won't work again and as they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. That about sums up the modern Republican Party." - Excerpt from Bill Clinton's speech in Miami, Florida on April 11th, 2000​

SWING STATE POLLS: BUSH ENJOYS COMFORTABLE MARGINS
Governor Bush leads President Clinton in most swing states

USA Today/Gallup Swing State Polls: (April 12th-14th, 2000)

Ohio:

"If the 2000 presidential election were being held today, for whom of the following would you vote...?"

• George W. Bush: 47%
• Bill Clinton: 41%
• Unknown/Other: 12

Florida:

"If the 2000 presidential election were being held today, for whom of the following would you vote...?"

• George W. Bush: 53%
• Bill Clinton: 40%
• Unknown/Other: 7%

Iowa:

"If the 2000 presidential election were being held today, for whom of the following would you vote...?"

• George W. Bush: 49%
• Bill Clinton: 46%
• Unknown/Other: 5%

Michigan:

"If the 2000 presidential election were being held today, for whom of the following would you vote...?"

• Bill Clinton: 50%
• George W. Bush: 45%
• Unknown/Other: 5%

Pennsylvania

"If the 2000 presidential election were being held today, for whom of the following would you vote...?"

• Bill Clinton: 49%
• George W. Bush: 48%
• Unknown/Other: 3%

 

[theReturner]

Interesting. I'm wondering if Bill Bradley will be Clinton's New Veep nominee?

 

[SLCer]

GORE OFFICIALLY OUT AS CLINTON'S VEEP
Move comes as little surprise; focus now turns to new nominee

Al Gore announced Tuesday he will not seek a third term with President Clinton. Speculation had suggested Gore might not accept the VP spot again.

"I have served this great country for eight years as its Vice President and I believe, along with the President, we have accomplished a great deal. I am proud to have been associated with President Bill Clinton and I will work tirelessly these next few months to ensure a Democratic victory in November.

Let it be known that my decision to not run with President Clinton has nothing to do with internal strife. There isn't any. Our relationship today is as strong as ever and will continue to be strong because, over the last eight years, I believe we have come to know one another on a very deeply personal level. I might consider President Clinton my president, but I also consider him my friend and I am thankful, and honored, that he gave me the opportunity eight years ago to help reshape this country in our vision.

I am excited for new adventures and new challenges. That is why it is time to announce I will not be seeking a third term and instead, will focus on finishing up my duties as Vice President and planning for my uncertain future." - Excerpt from Al Gore's speech announcing he won't seek a third term as Vice President​

The campaign knew eventually Gore would have to make his announcement and it was something they were dreading because it would once again fan the flames of a Clinton-Gore feud within the media. So, much like ripping off a band-aid, it was best to just get it over with as quickly as possible.

Gore made his announcement at the White House, with President Clinton by his side, and I think, for the most part, it was about as well handled as could be expected. We knew there was still a strained relationship for the two, so it was nice of Gore to be very gracious in his announcement, even though you got the sense he was holding back some true opinions on the matter.

In fact, Gore was a remarkable team player, all things considered, and that was a surprise. We didn't know how Gore would handle the potential idea of campaigning, and though he had hit the trail during the primaries with Clinton, that was before he officially announced he wouldn't be running. Now that he wasn't beholden to the campaign, some felt he would feel less inclined to do any work for Clinton. But he did. He did everything in his power to not give the illusion that there was some background infighting, which could have crippled the campaign.

So, after his announcement, the campaign thought it was best to send him out to the networks and do a couple of interviews. There were questions about his refusal to run again and we felt Gore could definitely help alleviate some concerns.​

- A 21st Century Campaign (John Sasso)​

GORE TO APPEAR ON MEET THE PRESS
First interview since his announcement that he won't seek third term

Gore sits down with NBC's Tim Russert this Sunday

Tim Russert: Lots of speculation Mr. Vice President that you and President Clinton do not get along, that you were angry with his decision to run for a third term and that's why you ultimately did not choose to seek the Vice Presidency again. Is any of that true?

Al Gore: Well Tim, no, uh, none of that is true. I have, and have had, immense respect for the President and believe he has been, you know, an extraordinary leader not just for our party, but our country. Uh, I'm not always going to see eye to eye with the President and there have been times where I've disagreed with him. But, uh, no, no not here. There is no issue between the President and myself.

Tim Russert: So, when you said you weren't running for President, it wasn't, as you said, because Clinton was being indecisive?

Al Gore: We're...these...no. These are two different questions, Tim. Uh, the reality. No. I mean, when I said that, it was back at, uh, a time where I had to make, you know, the uh, decision to - I had to make the decision on whether or not I would run and you're right, and what I said was right, the President's lack of a decision did, you know, in part, force my hand on the matter. I wasn't going to run against the President and if he ultimately had decided he wouldn't seek a third term, I was at a disadvantage by that time because I wasn't actively campaigning and, you know, was trailing badly in the polls to both Clinton & Bradley and I didn't see a way to overcome that.

So, so when I said what I said, it was absolutely true in the sense that my decision was influenced, if you will, by Clinton's lack of a commitment at the time to run for a third term. But as for that impacting my decision not to run on the ticket - no, no, I don't think it had anything to do with it. Had Clinton announced all the way back in early 1999 he was seeking a third term, I probably wouldn't have joined him and it was nothing personal.

Tim Russert: But back in 1999, you did contradict the White House by saying your decision to not run was directly influenced by Clinton's indecisiveness. Is that not true?

Al Gore: No, you're right - that's true.

Tim Russert: Okay. So, we've concluded that there was some tension between you and the President, some contradiction even, back in 1999? In fact, the New York Times said you were furious with Clinton and back then, you had decided to not run on the ticket again. Is any of that wrong?

Al Gore: Yes. That New York Times article wasn't true.

Tim Russert: It wasn't true? It was a lie?

Al Gore: A lie? I'd say a mischaracterization of the situation. Uh, look, there was disappointment, uh, with Clinton not deciding as fast as we had liked. But, you know, that happens and, uh, we got over it. I got over it.

Tim Russert: But that article, almost a year ago, said you weren't going to run because you were angry with Clinton and here you are not running. Is that just a coincidence or what?

Al Gore: Tim, I didn't decide not to run on the ticket back in 1999. This was a decision I just recently made. And you can call it a coincidence or whatever, but in the end, when I, uh, decided not to run with Clinton again, I made that choice solely because I felt it was time for something new. It had nothing to do with what happened last year and any person who tries to say that is just trying to, you know, make a mountain out of a molehill. There is nothing to see here. I promise.​

​

 

[theReturner]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Al Gore looks a bit like Tom Hanks?

 

[jerseyrules]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Al Gore looks a bit like Tom Hanks?

Eh......perhaps

 

[SLCer]

GORE GRILLED ON PAST CLINTON COMMENTS
In Meet the Press interview, Vice President struggles explaining comments

Al Gore's interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press up the Vice President on the defensive.

The campaign was not satisfied with Vice President Gore's first interview. He stumbled, badly at times, defining his past remarks and it didn't play well at all in the media. While the campaign didn't think it would ultimately damage them too much come November, it certainly wasn't helping. There was still strong perception in the media that Gore left the ticket solely out of spite and the interview didn't change that like the campaign had hoped.

So, after the Meet the Press interview, the campaign decided Gore would be better suited working back in Washington and doing the occasional fundraising, which Gore was satisfied with doing. In fact, that's probably what he wanted to do at the start, because he was obviously uncomfortable doing interviews on the subject. - A 21st Century Campaign (John Sasso)​

MAY, 2000 - ATTENTION TURNS TO VP SEARCH FOR BOTH CANDIDATES
Both campaigns believe decision will be made before conventions

The President's campaign has now officially begun the search for a running mate.

With Gore's announcement that he wouldn't run again, Clinton now had to go out and find a running mate of his own. Initially, the list, as speculated by the media, included Bob Graham of Florida, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, Bill Bradley, his friends Zell Miller & Sam Nunn of Georgia, Evan Bayh of Indiana and, finally, Dick Gephardt of Missouri.

Graham appeared to be the favorite, as he was a moderate Democrat from the swing state of Florida. But there was a growing concern among liberal party members that all of Clinton's choices, outside Bradley, were far too conservative. This election was not going to be like 1992 or 1996, voter turnout would be imperative to winning and if the Democrats couldn't count on their base, they would lose.

Still, Clinton didn't feel comfortable with someone extremely left. A few floated the names of Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold, but neither gained any traction with the President. Bradley, it seemed, was the only option from the left Clinton could even tolerate and discuss. The others, specifically those in the north east and out west, were just not going to be an option for the President.

The Bush campaign's approach wasn't nearly about political and geographical savviness and instead a focus on who would be loyal as a candidate and potential Vice President. Bush wanted someone he could trust, even if it came at the expense of an electoral vote. With the general consensus out there that Bush would pick his VP candidate before Clinton, since the Republican Convention was happening first, that also helped narrow the idea against a political pick since they didn't quite know what they would be running against anyway.

They didn't want to pick a southerner just because the consensus looked like Clinton would do the same and then, after making that pick, watch as Clinton chose someone from the west. So, this wasn't about matching the Clinton pick and instead going with the man, or woman, who best suited the campaign and Governor Bush. - BUCKLE UP! The Election 2000 Thriller (Larry J. Sabato)​

​

 

[SLCer]

June, 2000 - LIEBERMAN: I'M UNSURE IF I CAN SUPPORT PRES. CLINTON
Senator announces he may vote, and endorse, Governor Bush on ABC's This Week

​

Sam Donaldson: Last year, you mentioned that you might've voted for John McCain over Bill Clinton had he won the nomination. McCain didn't. Yet, since that statement, you haven't endorsed President Clinton. Are you ready to make an endorsement now, Senator?

Joe Lieberman: I've thought about that comment for a while now and you know what, Sam? I'm still undecided.

Sam Donaldson: You're still undecided? You might not vote for the President?

Joe Lieberman: I, uh, I'm unsure if I can support President Clinton this election. It's going to be a tough choice, obviously, and I, you know, believe I will be wrestling with that choice like millions of Americans will between now and election day.

Sam Donaldson: Why are you uncommitted to the President and does this mean you might support George Bush?

Joe Lieberman: As I said last year, I have been extremely disappointed with President Clinton's leadership. I, uh, think he has a moral flaw and it's unfortunate because, like many others, I felt there was much promise when he won the presidency in 1992. But, sadly, those promises have gone unfulfilled and I'm not sure four more years of the same moral disappointments is what this country needs right now. As to whether I might support George Bush, that's hard to say. I disagree with Governor Bush on a whole host of issues, but I am attracted to his convictions and I do believe he's a very honorable and trustworthy man. This is not going to be an easy decision. I don't expect it to be easy. I've got a while now, though, and I'll vote my conscience, even if, in the end, it's a vote against my party.

Sam Donaldson: Do you think this will put you at odds with your party?

Joe Lieberman: It might, but I'm, uh, a free man. I can vote however I see fit and if the Democrats don't like that, if they don't support that, well how ironic considering the party's name? Look, I supported and voted for President Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. But as a voter, as an American, and not a Senator, I doubt his sincerity - I doubt his leadership. As hard as that is to say as a once strong Clinton supporter, I don't trust him. So, when I enter that voting booth this November, I will vote for the candidate I believe is best suited to lead this nation for the next four years. I might ultimately decide it's President Clinton, but right now, I don't know yet.

Sam Donaldson: Are you leaning in a direction?

Joe Lieberman: No. No, not really. I've thought it over quite a bit the last few months and the more time passes, the more uncertain I become. I will have to wait for this election to play out. I will have to listen to both their ideas and in the end, I will vote, again, for the man I believe can best lead us.

Sam Donaldson: If it's Clinton, if you ultimately decide you'll support the President, will you let us know? Or are you not going to divulge who you're voting for?

Joe Lieberman [laughing] I probably won't announce. I don't think I'll be doing any campaigning for whomever I choose and certainly won't be endorsing. I'll keep that to myself and then, when I do vote, officially make my choice. Maybe, after it's all said and done, I'll tell you. [laughs]

Sam Donaldson: A lot of people might hear that and say, well, in the end, you'll certainly vote for Governor Bush.

Joe Lieberman: They'll think what they want, but in the end, no, they shouldn't read into it. My not expressing who I'll vote for is not an indication either way to who I'll support.

Joe Lieberman was certainly becoming a nuisance for the campaign. Though he hadn't officially endorsed either Bush or the President, the fact he was wavering, questioning whether he would vote for President Clinton, hurt the campaign. Lieberman was a well respected Senator, specifically among Jewish and conservative voters, and his indecisiveness didn't play well at all to those groups. Normally, you dismiss rogue politicians from your party who endorse the other guy, or don't endorse your guy, but in an election this narrow, with so little room for error, Lieberman's dismissive attitude of the Clinton campaign, his passive support of Governor Bush, could have proven the difference in November. - A 21st Century Campaign (John Sasso)​

JULY, 2000 - SPECULATION HEATS UP AS BUSH CLOSES IN ON VP PICK
List is whittled down to only a handful of candidates

Bush's stop in New Jersey raises speculation that Christine Todd Whitman could join the ticket.​

Bob Schieffer: We're now joined by former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour. Mr. Barbour, thank you for joining me on Face the Nation. First thing first, is there any indication of who Governor Bush will select as his running mate?

Haley Barbour: Well, Bob, no. I think this decision, obviously, is up to the Governor and he will select the person he believes brings the best leadership qualities to the table. I have faith in his decision making and am as anxious as you to see who our next Vice President will be.

Bob Schieffer: A bit of a bold statement there, but, uh, we can't fault you for your optimism. This week, though, Governor Bush was campaigning in New Jersey with Governor Christine Todd Whitman. Is she a viable choice?

Haley Barbour: I think, uh, she's a very respected governor and obviously, uh, Governor Bush would like to have as many options and as much diversity as possible for his, uh, you know, his, uh, choices. I do not know where she's at on the list, but I think, from what we've heard, you can pretty much concede that she is, uh, on the list.

Bob Schieffer: Would you be disappointed with him selecting a pro-choice candidate?

Haley Barbour: I won't lie to ya', Bob, there would be immense disappointment with that choice. I think, regardless of how much respect I have for Governor Whitman, it's important that our party, you know, the presidential candidate and the vice presidential candidate, embrace what has been a consistent Republican value, you know, the sanctity of life. These two individuals, regardless of the Governor's selection, will be carrying our party's banner and it's explicit, within our platform, that we do not support abortion.

Bob Schieffer: Do you believe that would hurt Governor Bush's popularity among evangelical voters?

Haley Barbour: I think it could certainly be an issue, obviously, but that's the decision Governor Bush has to make and he obviously has to weigh the consequences of such a decision. You know, his choice is not to be taken lightly. So, I hope, and I believe, that Governor Bush is doing a lot of praying and, uh, will ultimately support, or pick a candidate who is in line with the conservative values.

Bob Schieffer: Ignoring Whitman's pro-choice views for a second, do you think she would be a good choice outside the abortion issue?

Haley Barbour: Well it's impossible to ignore the abortion issue, Bob. It's the bedrock of our party. But look, I believe she's been a good governor, a competent governor, and I respect her for her leadership. I just don't know, if, you know, having her on the ticket would be the right move. But obviously if she is the choice, I'll certainly support the ticket and, uh, believe that both will bring immense knowledge and understanding to the White House.​

 

[SLCer]

Many high-level Bush campaign officials wanted Christine Todd Whitman on the ticket. They felt Clinton was vulnerable with women and if this election was going to be any different from 1992 and 1996, Bush would have to do significantly better among women voters than Dole four years ago and his father four years before that.

Whitman would also help balance out the ticket, as there was a growing perception, though they weren't necessarily identified within the head-to-head polling, that Bush might be too conservative. He had tried to alter that view by calling himself a compassionate conservative and running a more moderate general election campaign, but the stigma of the Republican primary, his battle with the maverick, and moderate, John McCain, was still fresh in the minds of many voters.

So, a few in the campaign felt Whitman should be the choice. She was smart, moderate, female and from a state that, while Democratic, wasn't so Democratic that it couldn't switch in 2000.

Bush, though, was reluctant from the start. He didn't like, and didn't support, Whitman's pro-choice views and felt he would be selling out his own position, and that of the Republicans, on this matter if he picked her. While he had no personal animosity toward her, he said from the start that he was not going to make a political pick. He just wasn't comfortable with Whitman and no matter how hard campaign officials pressed him to select her, he wasn't budging. - BUCKLE UP! The Election 2000 Thriller (Larry J. Sabato)

BUSH PICKS CHENEY
Former Secretary of Defense brings loyalty, toughness to ticket

George W. Bush picked his father's former Secretary of Defense as his running mate. Cheney, 59, brings a wealth of experience to the ticket.

NJ GOVERNOR CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN WAS FINALIST
Her pro-choice views, though, became liability in her selection

Popular moderate governor Christine Todd Whitman's pro-choice views ultimately cost her a shot at being Bush's running mate, a source close to the campaign said.

PRE-CONVENTION POLL: BUSH LEADS CLINTON BY 7
Bush's lead narrows, but still up on President comfortably

ABC News Poll (July 27th-29th, 2000):

"If the 2000 presidential election were being held today, for whom of the following would you vote...?"

• George W. Bush: 50%
• Bill Clinton: 43%
• Undecided/Other: 7%

REPUBLICAN CONVENTION UNDERWAY
Party meets in Philadelphia to officially nominate George W. Bush

"During the almost seven years since I left the army, I've traveled all across America. I've seen people hard at work providing for their families, giving of themselves, caring for each other.

I've seen them creating wealth for the nation. I've seen an economy transforming itself to seize the promise of the information revolution. I've met so many of our fellow citizens who believe in America to the depth of their hearts and who are doing everything they can in their communities to make our nation that more perfect union spoken of in our constitution.

I've been moved yet again to stand in awe of the American dream which was given birth in this city over 200 years ago. A dream I have been privileged to live. I've met so many young people who believe in the dream. They are on a road to success. They are being raised in strong families, going to good schools, filling the finest universities, graduating and going on to find their place and fortune in this land." - Excerpt from Colin Powell's speech to the 2000 Republican Convention​

​

 

[SLCer]

BUSH ACCEPTS NOMINATION, CALLS FOR RESPECTFUL LEADERSHIP
In convention speech, hits President's integrity

"This election is most certainly about change. It's about restoring not just honor and integrity to the Oval Office, but to our military and reestablishing the might of America's Armed Forces. We have an administration, a President, who has neglected our men and women in uniform, who has lost the respect of his fellow countrymen and brought into question the greatness of the office he has held for eight years.

I am here to say to you tonight, America, that change is needed - leadership is needed. Honor and integrity is needed. This country deserves real, honest, faithful leadership - something that it has been lacking under this President.

This election is about the issues most important to average, everyday Americans who see their wages stagnated, their upward mobility threatened and a bloated, vast government that doesn't work for the people and instead works for only a select few.

This election is about ceding the power of government to the people - folks who have small town values and a work ethic unrivaled by any nation or any people.

This election is about bringing commonsense back to our government. It's about lifting government off the backs of middle-class America by lowering their taxes and reinvigorating the economy through the people - not through unchecked bureaucracy.

America, we are entering a new era, with new hope and a unifying spirit. We are a nation that is clamoring not just for change, but a government that holds dear the values that make up the fabric of this nation. They want a president who will lead with dignity, honesty, and honor. My fellow Americans, I will be that president." - Excerpt from George W. Bush's Acceptance Speech at the 2000 Republican Convention​

​

Bush's convention speech hit President Clinton pretty hard and laid out the foundation for their 2000 campaign message. This was going to be a race about honesty and integrity - not the economy. At least, that's how they wanted to frame it. Bush knew he couldn't go toe-to-toe with the President on the economy, since the growth we had experienced under his leadership was historic, but if he could play up the questions surrounding the President's truthfulness, make Clinton Fatigue a legitimate issue, then the economy would almost certainly be a less impactful issue.

So, the campaign knew this was going to be a dog fight. They had already trailed in the polls prior to the convention and Bush's speech was well received. It was strong, forceful, patriotic and hit on the talking points Republicans, and to some extent middle America, loved to hear - namely taxes and getting big government out of their lives.

Forget, of course, that President Clinton had shrank government to its lowest level since the Roosevelt administration, Bush was good at making average Americans believe Clinton was for big, scary government.

Of course, we anticipated this. We knew the convention would alter the race a bit. I just don't think we expected what was to come. - A 21st Century Campaign (John Sasso)​

CONVENTION BOUNCE! BUSH LEADS CLINTON BY 17 POINTS NATIONALLY
Bush surges as Clinton sinks

George W. Bush's convention bounce puts him nearly 20 points ahead of Bill Clinton.

ABC News Poll (August 4th-7th, 2000):

"If the 2000 presidential election were being held today, for whom of the following would you vote...?"

• George W. Bush: 55%
• Bill Clinton: 38%
• Undecided/Other: 7%

​

 

[SLCer]

AUGUST, 2000 - DEMS PRIVATELY DOUBT CLINTON'S CHANCES
Recent polling has many Democrats worried about November

Anonymous Democratic insiders told the Washington Post that the party is readying for President Clinton's possible defeat later this year.​

The campaign was pretty surprised that Bush had opened up anywhere from a 13 to 17 point lead on Clinton in the wake of the Republican Convention. While a bump was expected, the magnitude of Bush's Convention Bump wasn't and it left the campaign scrambling to chart a new course only weeks before their own convention.

In reality, we knew the bump wouldn't last. It was likely Bush's numbers would drop back down to single digits by the time the Democrats rallied to renominate the President. A growing problem, though, was that President Clinton had essentially trailed in this race from the time he announced to the time of the Democratic Convention. Prior to the Republican Convention, he was down, in some polls, by seven points. So, even if the numbers weren't sustained at 17 points nationally, Governor Bush had built a big enough advantage to find himself in a comfortable place heading into, really, the final quarter of the campaign.

We were running the risk of falling so far behind in the polls that even with a successful convention, there wouldn't be enough momentum to make it a race. Surely if Clinton trailed by seven at the end of his convention speech in August, the potential of winning in November dropped considerably. So, he needed some traction even before Democrats met in Los Angeles and, after looking over the polling data, we knew where the traction could eventually come from because, if the results were correct, Clinton had to radically adjust his standing with an important group of voters or he would be toast come November. - A 21st Century Campaign (John Sasso)​

EYES TURN TO POTENTIAL CLINTON RUNNING MATE
Bob Graham, Bob Kerrey and Bill Bradley are three most mentioned

Senator Bob Graham of Florida appears to be the leading candidate for Clinton's VP slot

POLL: BRADLEY HELPS CLINTON BEST AGAINST BUSH
Others bring little advantage to ticket

"If the 2000 presidential election were being held today, for whom of the following would you vote...?"


NBC News Poll (August 8th-10th, 2000):

• George W. Bush/Dick Cheney: 53%
• Bill Clinton/Bill Bradley: 40%
• Undecided/Other: 7%

• George W. Bush/Dick Cheney: 54%
• Bill Clinton/Bob Kerrey: 39%
• Undecided/Other: 7%

• George W. Bush/Dick Cheney: 55%
• Bill Clinton/Bob Graham: 39%
• Undecided/Other: 6%

WHO WILL CLINTON PICK?
Decision expected this week

Tim Russert: New polls out this week showing the President trailing Governor Bush badly nationally. The President has yet to pick his running mate, but can anyone salvage the potential of a third term for President Clinton - or is he done? Margaret Carlson, who do you think he'll choose and will it work?

Margaret Carlson: I think polls this out don't mean much. There is still a ton of time for President Clinton to, uh, get back into this and I think, really, he'll be able to campaign his way back into a, uh, respectable position. Whether it's enough, uh, I can't, I can't say, but I do believe, come November, this race will..will be pretty close and about as narrow as, you know, many of us were expecting at the first of the year. As for who he'll pick, I think he'll go with Bob Graham. Graham is, and has been, the leading guy pretty much the entire time. He's a safe pick, he's a good pick and he'll, I think, put Florida back in play and that's, that's important.

Tim Russert: Even though a recent NBC poll suggested Graham wasn't the best to help the ticket, instead, uh, it was Bill Bradley, I believe.

Margaret Carlson: Well, you'll have to wait until after the convention, I guess.

Tim Russert: Bob Novak, do you agree with Margaret?

Bob Novak: No, I don't. I think Bob Graham would be a boring pick, too cautious and would bring little to the, uh, ticket. I think the President is in trouble here and wildly overestimated America's enthusiasm for a third term. This is not FDR. Clinton is not FDR. And I think maybe he bit off a bit more than he could chew with this idea of running for a third term. You know, I spoke with some prominent Illinois Democrats, and I promised not to divulge names, but they don't believe Clinton will win this November and they blame his running for a third term on the very real prospects of the Democrats losing the president. They believe, had Clinton stepped aside, Gore, Vice President Gore, probably would have been able to win this thing.

So, I don't think one pick will radically change this race. They generally don't. But I will agree with Margaret when she says that the polls will narrow. I don't anticipate Governor Bush to lead by 17 at the end of October. But will it be enough?

Tim Russert: If they do narrow, though, won't it potentially make that pick that much more important? In that same poll that showed Graham not bringing much to the ticket, Bill Bradley does bring the most to it, however. Paired with Clinton, they only trail Bush by 13 points. Far better than the 17 point margin he holds in some other polls.

Bob Novak: Well I think the Bradley thing is because he ran for president and has some initial name recognition that someone like Bob Graham might not have. That'll change, though. In fact, I think, regardless of who the President picks, he's probably trailing Bush by about that 13 points. In the end, I don't believe Bradley would alter the race that much.

Tim Russert: Al, how does the President get back into this? Can he get back into it with one pick or do you agree with Bob on this one?

Al Hunt: Well Tim, I think that both Bob and Margaret are right when they say the polls will narrow. I anticipate, in the end, we'll have a very close election. I do think Clinton has a problem, though, trying to convince Americans he'll bring a fresh set of ideas to the table in his third term. If he can convince them, it won't matter who he picks. That's what this campaign, I believe, really relies on. But I do think, looking at the names mentioned, and to be honest, none really do much for me, Graham is the best pick. Bob says he's too boring. That's fine. You don't want a risky vice presidential pick. When Bush chose Quayle in 1988, while it obviously didn't cost him the election, it brought unneeded attention to the ticket. Clinton doesn't want that, especially trailing as badly as he is in the polls. He wants someone who can bring on board a much needed state like, you know, Florida, talk a good talk on the stump and not rock the boat too much. Graham does that.

Tim Russert: Consensus then that it's Graham?​

​

 

[SLCer]

RUNNING MATE SHOCKER: CLINTON PICKS LANDRIEU
President bucks conventional wisdom, selects female senator from Louisiana

Mary Landrieu, if nominated, would become only the second female to be placed on a major party ticket - joining Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.​

The selection of Mary Landrieu was a huge surprise and probably the best kept secret of the campaign season. Everyone expected Clinton to announce Bob Graham as his running mate, but after a secluded meeting, only a couple days before the announcement, it became very clear a dire situation was unfolding for the President.

Landrieu had actually been vetted earlier in the year as one of the lesser candidates, as she, along with Jeanne Shaheen, were the female candidates the campaign looked hardest at. Even so, most, including myself, didn't anticipate either to emerge as the front runner for the position and that remained the consensus of the campaign until roughly the Republican Convention.

When Bush rolled out of Philadelphia with a 17 point lead on Clinton, it became apparent things were going south fast. While we didn't want to overreact to the situation, polling data prior to the convention continually established a difficult outlook for the President. He was popular as a president, but not necessarily as a leader and certainly not as a person.

The group that had turned on the President the most, which was behind his sinking poll numbers, were women. That was troubling because no Democrat can win win the White House without a sizable margin of female support. He wasn't getting it and the margins among men, which Bush had all but locked up, were pretty large. But because Clinton was now losing the female vote, even if by a small margin, the overall numbers were not good. He was losing nationally, even our internal polls showed that, and this was before the Republican Convention. After, if the election had been held that first week of August, I'm not sure the President would have won one state - let alone the election.

In '92, Clinton actually didn't overwhelm with the female vote. He carried it, but by an eight-point margin, which was good, but hardly game-changing. What helped him then, in that election, was the fact he managed to win the male vote 41-38 over George H.W. Bush. By 1996, however, he lost the male vote, but actually improved dramatically his support among female voters - winning them by a 54% to 38% margin. That allowed him to lose the male vote and still win the election comfortably.

In our polling, which looked bleak through much of the spring and summer, Clinton was consistently losing the female vote by 3-5 points and the male vote by 10-plus. That equaled a blowout loss in the electoral college. He needed to flip that - win the female vote by 10 points and lose the male vote by only 3-5. If he could, if he did that, he would win the election.

None of the candidates, at least the male candidates, could switch the demographics. They just couldn't do it. They were all old, white men that did nothing for the voters who wanted change.

What better way to address change than bringing on board a female running mate?

It was a risky move and we knew as much. I remember sitting at the table with Hillary Clinton and the President outlining why he was losing this election. The numbers were pointing to a very tough climb back and he needed a candidate, a running mate, who could create positive press and energy for a campaign that, unfortunately, was lacking it. Clinton, though, didn't like the idea initially. It had nothing to do with Landrieu personally, but his fear that attaching himself to a female running mate would open the campaign to jokes. This was an uneasy conversation with Hillary right there and you could see her cringe at the thought of what he was hinting. But he was right. There was a concern the media would make light of his infidelity problems and there would be whispers of it on the campaign trail.

President Clinton then remarked he remembered back when Mondale was campaigning with Ferraro in 1984 and how he limited contact because he didn't want to give off the appearance there was something going on behind the scenes - romantically, of course. The President had been shamed and would a female running mate bring those issues back to the forefront, with people snickering at the possibility of a relationship between the two?

I was actually surprised Clinton addressed this. He rarely, if ever, talked about what had happened in the past, specifically with Lewinsky, and he brought up a legitimate concern. Still, I didn't think it was worth not going after a female candidate and the polls pretty much backed me up.

Clinton wasn't going to win unless he won over women supporters who had abandoned him the last four years. They supported him, they might have liked what he was doing as president, but they didn't trust him.

Enter either Landrieu or Shaheen.

Hillary didn't like the idea because she felt it was gimmicky. Her concern wasn't her husband's image with a female candidate, she thought in the end that wouldn't be a big issue, but she didn't want to cheapen the process by picking a candidate solely because she was female.

But both were qualified to an extent. While Landrieu had only been in the senate since 1997, she had held office going all the way back to 1980 and was a very popular senator and seen as a rising star in the party. She was also southern, moderate and fit the Clinton mold similarly to Al Gore back in '92 - though, obviously, with less experience in Washington.

I did believe she would be a positive for the ticket and while it wouldn't be near the safest bet as, say Graham, it would be the one that paid off the most. Clinton-Graham was not going to win the President four more years. Clinton-Landrieu would.

So, after much debate, a lot of hand-wringing, poring over her records, and finally convincing the President that his last chance at reelection might be with Landrieu, we took the plunge. The President called the Senator and asked her to be on the ticket. She was floored, to say the least, but accepted - having indicated back in January she would be perceptive to running.

Now, we all held our collected breathes and hoped it would work. - A 21st Century Campaign (John Sasso)

 

[SLCer]

Feel I'm doing this in vain now, but oh well!

DEMOCRATS READY FOR CONVENTION
Party anxiously looks to gain momentum

President Clinton & Senator Landrieu rally for the first time in Washington, as the two make their way to the Democratic Convention.​

There was a lot of pressure on the campaign to pull off the perfect convention. Down in the polls and still trying to find any traction, any kinks in Los Angeles could have essentially blunted the momentum typically reserved for candidates as they came out of the convention.

Because of Landrieu being the first major female running mate since Ferraro in '84, attention was certainly geared toward that third night and her speech. Not many people had heard of her, so, this speech was the defining moment of her political career. The campaign didn't want to put any pressure on her, but we all knew this was the make or break moment.

Since she wasn't accustom to national politics, no one exactly knew how Landrieu would do in front of the convention. Would her nerves get the best of her? How well could she read a teleprompter? The fear, among some in the campaign, was that she would be boring and unenthusiastic, which could undercut the energy she might bring to the ticket.

So, as the convention kicked off, we knew all eyes would be on Landrieu - not Clinton. - A 21st Century Campaign (John Sasso)​

LANDRIEU WOWS AT CONVENTION
Historic nomination speech slams Bush-Cheney

Senator Landrieu readies to speak at the Democratic National Convention after being introduced by Washington Governor Gary Locke.

"What we have here is a Republican Party that has based its reality in the philosophy of reactionary politics. They believe, even though the rest of us have now entered a new century, that politics must be rooted in a bygone generation that doesn't exist anymore. The Republicans today are Atari in a Sony PlayStation world.

So, I guess you can't fault them too much when they talk about moving our country back to an economic system that fell with the Berlin Wall because, you know, that's all they've really ever known. Well it's time the American people tell the Republican Party that this is an election not about the past, but about the future. And if we have to drag them into the 21st Century kicking and screaming, well by golly, we will!

You see, the Republicans still subscribe to an economic agenda that crippled our budget, skyrocketed our debt and left the economy in ruin. And it took President Clinton and his bold, new ideas to pull us out of the depths of recession and bring our country into a new era of competent, lean and mean government that works not at the expense of the people - but for the people.

And what do the Republicans want to do? They want to undo every aspect of what President Clinton worked so hard to accomplish these past eight years. Governor Bush's policies might be draped under the banner of Compassionate Conservatism, but his philosophies are no different than the failed ones his father pushed a decade ago. I'm confident this November, the American people will rise up and tell the Republican Party that we are not buying what they are selling and we will not be fooled by their empty rhetoric and backward ideas!

This country has its eyes firmly set on the future and there is only one candidate in this election with the ideas and passion to successfully lead us there. His name is Bill Clinton and I am honored to be his running mate. I am honored to stand by his side and work with him as we work for you and then join him as we begin a new chapter in the ever growing, ever evolving, ever amazing story that is the greatness of America." - Excerpt from Senator Mary Landriue's Acceptance Speech at the 2000 Democratic Convention​

​

 

[Peelitebkearns]

Feel I'm doing this in vain now, but oh well!"

I'm still reading and I like it, so keep it up...

Love Clinton's Veep pick-I expect Clinton's advisers had Bush ultimately not picking Witmen in the back of their minds for this-picking up disappointed swing voters.

Evidently, was Witmen considered as Bush's running mate in OTL? and did Bush enjoy simelarly large leads at this stage of the campaign?

 

[SLCer]

Thanks! Even if it's just you and I in this thread, I'm having fun writing it.

Whitman was considered, though, I don't think at the length in my TL.

Bush did see a huge spike in approval in the OL after the GOP Convention, having hit a high of 17 on August 6th. So, I kept those poll numbers close to what Bush experienced against Gore.

 

[Peelitebkearns]

Thanks! Even if it's just you and I in this thread, I'm having fun writing it.

Whitman was considered, though, I don't think at the length in my TL.

Bush did see a huge spike in approval in the OL after the GOP Convention, having hit a high of 17 on August 6th. So, I kept those poll numbers close to what Bush experienced against Gore.

Good stuff-I'm pretty sure other people are reading as well though.

Looking forward to Clinton playing catch-up in the remainder of the campaign-it'd be ironic if you made Bush win the Pov but lose the Electeral college...

 

[SLCer]

CLINTON ACCEPTS DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION
Tells America, 'We can't go back'

President Clinton speaks at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.

Al Gore takes the stage at the Democratic National Convention to introduce Bill Clinton.

"The greatness of America is rooted in its people - the individuals who make up our neighborhoods, our towns, and our cities. They don't ask for much. They don't ask for handouts or freebies - they just want an opportunity to succeed. When I was elected president eight years ago, these people - average, everyday Americans - were struggling to provide for their families. Many had lost their jobs and some even their livelihoods.

Today, eight years later, we have record low unemployment, higher wages, more security and a prosperous middle class that makes up the backbone of American greatness. You see, what makes our nation the envy of the world is the opportunity we provide our own and we've done that.

But we can't let up. America, we can't let up! We have come too far, we have done so much to go back. America, we can't go back! We can't go back to the same failed policies that took away the security so many of us hold dear. We can't afford to go back to the same failed policies that wrecked our economy, ballooned our deficit, and left us in record debt without anything to show for it. America, we must go forward - we must continue the fight, not just for this generation, but tomorrow's generation!

That's what is at stake in this election. So please, I urge you, I ask you, to join me, fight with me, walk side by side with me as we push this country further into the 21st Century and I promise you - I promise you, America, that when we get there, when we successfully win this November, you will have a President that will go to battle for you, who will sweat for you, who will work for you, who will fight for you, and do what is right to make our country even stronger and better than it is today!" - Excerpt from President Bill Clinton's Acceptance Speech at the 2000 Democratic Convention
​

The campaign felt very satisfied with the convention. It went flawlessly and I think illustrated to the American people the importance of keeping Bill Clinton in office. I don't think anyone could have asked for a better convention - from Senator Landrieu's stunning acceptance speech, Al Gore's fiery introduction of President Clinton and the confetti-filled ending to Still the One by Orleans blaring through the arena as the Landrieus joined the Clintons on stage.

That was going to be an extraordinary ticket. We were all convinced of this and anticipated quite the bump in the polls after the convention. At least we hoped. - A 21st Century Campaign (John Sasso)

CLINTON'S BACK IN IT
Post convention polls put Clinton in dead heat with Bush

A successful convention helps boost Clinton's support nationally

CBS News Poll (August 18th-21st, 2000):


"If the 2000 presidential election were being held today, for whom of the following would you vote...?"

• George W. Bush: 50%
• Bill Clinton: 47%
• Undecided/Other: 3%

"Do you hold a favorable or unfavorable view of Senator Mary Landrieu?"

• Favorable: 42%
• Unfavorable: 15%
• Unsure/Never heard of: 43%

 

[theReturner]

Just wondering, but how do you pronounce Landrieu?