No, this really isn't exactly like 2004
by digby
TPM is featuring a cute story on all this Romney speculation:
[T]his is a tried-and-true feature of the presidential election cycle. One need only look back to 2002, when losing 2000 presidential candidate Al Gore was frequently referred to as a possible 2004 aspirant. In fact, the Post put out a report about the Gore 2004 rumblings -- Gore, of course, ended up not running again -- almost 12 years to the day before its Monday report on Mitt.
There are some differences. Ann Romney doesn't sound much interested in another run, while Tipper Gore was ready to go. With a weak field of Republican potentials, Romney has been re-establishing some old campaign connections, while Gore had let his network stagnate for the most part. But the similarities in the hype, the coverage, the leaks, and the pure speculation are equally striking.
Yeah, there's one other little difference he forgot to point out. Unlike Romney who lost his election in an electoral college rout, Gore actually won the popular vote and was denied office on the basis of a disputed total in a state run by his rival's brother and a partisan Supreme Court ruling. That was just a teensy bit more of a motivator for people to seriously think Gore should run. There was even a fabulous built-in slogan: "Re-elect Gore in 2004."
9/11 happened and then Iraq and everybody was worshipping codpieces and waving the flag so it wasn't to be. But it was nothing like Romney. There were many Democrats who felt they'd been literally robbed of their rightful president and I doubt very seriously there's even one Republican outside Romney's family who would make that argument.
.