Some of Gore's major campaign donors don't want him to run in 2004

WASHINGTON -- Supporters of Vice President Al Gore chanted "Gore in '04" after his concession speech Wednesday night but some of his major campaign donors are insisting that, if he runs for president again, it will be without their help.

The resolution of the election has given these donors the sense of freedom to break ranks with the vice president and express the view that he ran a lousy campaign that squandered his predecessor's franchise.

"We want somebody new. We want a fresh face," said Vinod Gupta, an Internet entrepreneur who contributed $318,000 to Gore and Democratic committees.

Some donors and fund-raisers criticized Gore's campaign strategy while others blamed the defeat on his personality. But the desire to cut Gore loose is strong among donors from both the liberal and centrist wings of the party.

To be sure, Gore has loyalists whose devotion has grown because they believe he would have won the election, if all the votes had been counted. Other Democratic donors feel a surge of affection for the vice president because of his painful loss and are reluctant to talk about his future. And some are eager to talk about Gore in 2004.

"My phone was ringing off the hook from people saying, 'What do we do to get ready for four years from now?' " said Chris Korge, a lawyer and fund-raiser for Gore in Miami.

Nonetheless, the group of donors and fund-raisers who already have given up on the vice president foreshadows a difficult road if Gore wants another shot at the White House.

Before backing a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, party officials will want to know that he can attract the millions of dollars in contributions needed to wage a serious campaign. Veteran fund-raisers suggested that Gore's appeal will diminish as time goes on.

"There are a lot of givers who are burned out on him in part because they're disappointed. They think it was his campaign to lose and they felt he lost it," said a leading Democratic fund-raiser, who declined to be identified because he is employed by a member of Congress who has a policy against it. "There's anger at Gore and the campaign. In a good economy the incumbent party should win."

This fund-raiser, who speaks to many donors every day, believes that about half the party's traditional givers no longer want to support Gore. The vice president's biggest weakness in attracting campaign contributions, the fund-raiser said, is his personality:

"Gore doesn't have a human antenna. Fund raising is personal. People want to feel connected. He doesn't connect at a one-on-one level or from the television screen."

Gupta hosted an Omaha, Neb., fund-raising event with President Clinton last week and has donated $1 million to Clinton's presidential library. He was among many donors who groused that Gore's refusal to run on the Clinton legacy or to ask the president for help on the campaign trail cost him the election.

"He was a partner in eight years of a presidency that brought so much to this country," Gupta said. "But he completely squandered that by saying he was his own man and not using President Clinton and not even taking credit for the years of ... economic growth."

Several donors suggested that, if Gore had let Clinton campaign for him in even one state -- Arkansas -- the outcome of the election would have been different.

"A lot of the money raised for Al Gore was from Clinton loyalists who wanted to sustain the Clinton legacy," said one donor, who gave more than $250,000 to Democrats. "He turned and bit the hand that fed him," said the donor, who did not want to be quoted by name so soon after Gore's concession.

Even some Gore loyalists believe that his failure to win the presidency stemmed from his failure as a campaigner.

Trevor Pearlman, Dallas venture capitalist and former trial lawyer who contributed $161,000 to Gore and the Democratic National Committee during this election cycle, said he realized that Gore was dropping the ball during the first debate, when the vice president was perceived as arrogant, mean and not likable.