Gore showing such passion these days begs the question:

[Sandpiper]

Why wasn't he like this in 2000?

[mdmc]

1. that little punk....

[MrChupon]

2. Simple enough answer

Life was pretty damned good in 2000, and there was nothing to get this passionate about. I was very Anti-Bush yet I never imagined he would be this disasterous. I mean in 2000 Bush was an Embarassment, in 2004 he is an Outrage. There's your difference.

[Skittles]

13. I beg to differ

anyone who knew his record in Texas - who KNEW what a moronic, unqualified ASSHOLE Bush is - we all knew it would be a disaster.

[zmdem]

16. Bush was popular inTexas

Didn't he win re-election by a landslide ?

[Skittles]

17. when I say WE

I mean us Texas Dems. :)

[zmdem]

22. Fair enough, but

his re-election numbers were pretty remarkable, even for a Republican state. FAIR DISCLOSURE: As an Oregonian, it's highly likely that my knowledge of Texas politics is *limited* ;>)

[Skittles]

24. they voted for him the same reason almost half the country did

his name

PS I like your avatar; my mum is a Brit.

[carpetbagger]

29. But Texans are not like most Americans.

The words selfish and know-nothing apply, the stereotypes are all true, and so most of us love guys like Bush. The exceptions are usually expatriate yankees like myself, minorities, people old enough to remember the depression, and a small liberal counterculture.

[tinrobot]

3. Why weren't we like this as well?

Everyone was lazy, fat, and happy back in 2000 thanks to 8 years of peace and prosperity.

Now we have a reason to be angry, so does Gore. I've never seen the left so mobilized and unified as they are right now.

Things are a LOT different these days.

[Sweetpea]

Yes....now we are all Wild Eyed!!!!!!!

[Sweetpea]

4. Yes....now we are all Wild Eyed!!!!!!!

[NNadir]

7. Good point.

I love the President-elected new voice though.

It's a real measure of what we lost.

[ibegurpard]

23. I agree

At the time I was hoping Gore would bow out gracefully so as not to ruin the chance to run again in '04. What a difference four years can make!

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. I was already angry back then. Just got even madder since then.

[unteagles]

5. I'm still angry at Gore

He failed to connect to Clinton's administration and failed to energize the country about his presidency. Florida discounted, the election was too close...he had goodwill going in.

I just hope Kerry doesn't fall into the same trap...I feel he is, though, and I hope I'm wrong.

[Sandpiper]

6. Gore's worst mistake

Was listening to the idiots on his campaign staff that told him to distance himself from Clinton.

Why would you want to distance yourself from a guy that left office with almost a 70% approval rating?

[Skittles]

14. Lieberman was a big mistake too

nt

[Carolina]

20. and listening to that media BS

about Clinton fatigue!

[eileen from OH]

8. He was being "careful"

and now I think he really doesn't care about a political future, which frees him to say the truth and if people don't like it, tough. I think that's why he was drawn to Dean - Dean was out there tellin' it like it was and getting worked up and taking shit for it and I think it struck a chord with the "real" Gore.

I think he's probably always been this passionate and always cared this much, but was schooled in the ways of always treading lightly down the never-say-anything-controversial path.

Gotta say I love the "new" Al Gore.

eileen from OH

[Sandpiper]

9. I agree that he always cared this much

It's just a shame that in 2000 he was playing not to lose rather than playing to win.

[necso]

10. The circumstances are much different...

and what is at stake is much more apparent. Now, nothing less than governance by law is clearly at stake.

Besides in 2000, Gore's personal interests were greatly in play. For the modest among us, it is easier to fight for something when you are clearly not doing it for some selfish interest. Passion, discolored of personal interest, rings truer and burns brighter.

[Nikki Stone 1]

11. Gore's function has changed; the party now needs him in a different role t

Back in 2000, Gore was a candidate who had to appeal to the moderate and swing voters. That is typically how parties see elections. Both Gore and Bush moved toward the middle and tried to leave the other candidate on the margins. This means no passionate speeches that appeal to your base but leave the middle cold or wary. Nader's candidacy screwed up this strategy for the Dems because Nader syphoned off some of the base. (Gore actually won the election anyway, but I won't get into that.)

This year, Gore is not a candidate. His job is to fire up the base and revive the faith of the left in the Democratic party while Kerry, who is fairly lackluster to begin with, stays fairly moderate so that he can draw in enough of the swing voters to win. Nader's presence means that Gore's role is crucial--he is directly competing with Nader for the disaffected left in addition to the usual base.

So, in 2000, passionate speeches would have been a bad strategy for Gore as candidate. In 2004, Gore has a much different role and the speeches are a necessity. They also serve the additional function of pulling attention away from Kerry. The neocon media can sink their teeth into AL Gore while Kerry remains unexciting and elusive.

[TrustingDog]

12. good question. don't trust any of them..... eom

[patricia92243]

15. He has decided to be a patriot - not a politician.

[Nevernose]

18. I really don't blame Gore -- They were going to screw him no matter what

They're still screwing him, in fact. The Republican media were obviously ready, willing, and able to paint him as wild-eyed if he showed any emotion. His "robot" image had already been well-established by that point, so he would have been accused of being a phony and a flip-flopper (or at least used as evidence). They were going to fuck him no matter what he did; Dubya got a free ride on the media gravy train.

Just now he doesn't have anything to lose, so he may as well show some spunk.

[NNadir]

19. All this is true. n/t

[zmdem]

21. Times were different ?

9/11 hadn't happened, the cold war was over, economy was sliding into recession but wouldn't be noticed until after the election, Gore was remarkably inept as a campaigner, Bush clobbered him in the debates, etc.

Gore couldn't have been in 2000 like he is now. The times changed. 9/11 really did change things, but too late for the Vice President. It was a ho-hum election, either candidate was OK, but it didn't really seem to be a big deal either way.

[kentuck]

25. I recall that Gore was criticized for being too much of a "populist"...

in 2000?? That swung me to support him and I'm sure I was not the only one. I think that led directly to his victory in the popular vote. I cannot buy the line that he somehow changed....the only thing that changed was the way he was portrayed by the press and media. Unfortunately, I think many dare not admit they were under the spell of the corporate media?

[Beam Me Up]

26. Our country wasn't in the hands of madmen

I really don't believe many of us had ANY IDEA that Bush would be THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER or those who are controlling him would be a THREAT to our national security.

[Jose Diablo]

27. There is blood in the water

the republican party is about to eat their own, Gore wants a place in the new government AND I think he cares about the injustice done to our country. I am glad he is making a stand.

Besides, its good strategy to let Gore do the slashing at this time rather than Kerry. Kerry will deliver the final stab though, as he must.