Clarence Page on Gore/Dean--please do not kill the messenger--me!

[wndycty]

-snip-
The only problem with this scenario is that it reveals how little of Dean's campaign has been about the nuts-and-bolts issues and how much of it has been about opposing "Bush's war." Dean spells out that opposition in crowd-pleasing generalities, but offers little detail as to how he would withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and what the consequences might be for that region or America's image worldwide. So far, Dean has not had to offer details. Ironically, like Richard Nixon in 1968, Dean only has to promise to withdraw America with honor and that's enough red meat for his hard-core supporters.

With that in mind, Dean does run a risk by linking himself too closely to party insiders like Al Gore. Dean's maverick supporters might seriously question the ability of insiders like Gore to remain loyal to something larger than themselves--something like ideals. They might even mention as an example of Gore's fidelity his heave-ho farewell to Joe Lieberman.

Ah, and you wonder why so many people hate politics.

-snip-

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0312100183dec10,1,4853009.column?coll=chi-news-col

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. As a Dean supporter

I see Gore's endorsement as showing that the People can win over the establishment. I don't think anyone in the Dean camp thought we could win the election without the endorsement and help of the old-line Dems.

As for Dean's plan for getting out of Iraq-I think a lot of it depends on the situation when he takes office. That he wants to get the UN involved and make sure the country is stable before we leave is enough of an outline to satisfy me for right now.

[Hep]

2. What exactly does Clarence page know?

Nothing. He doesn't bother to look around and see the nonstop discussion about everything concerning Dean. He doesn't bother to realize that it is HIS industry who is still talking about the war 24/7. Dean's campaign is about us.

Like he says, They're not trying to stop me, they're trying to stop you. Clarence Page is among the "they", and wndycty is apparently their messenger.

[wndycty]

4. Damn. . .

. . .can a Clark supporter or better yet anyone who supports another candidate, but likes Dean post something critical of him with out being implicated in some type of "They're not trying to stop me, they're trying to stop you" conspiracy? And people wonder why we call the Deanics a cult.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Schmendrick54]

37. Just another opinion (but it's mine so it must be right.)

Before this election, my level of participation in politics was to vote, period. So far this year I have donated about $250 to various political organizations and campaigns (mostly to Howard Dean), travelled 500 miles to NH to canvass for Dean, participated in 5 meetups, attended or volunteered at three rallies where Dean spoke, and reproduced and distributed about ten DVDs of Dean speeches. I believe this qualifies me as an enthusiastic supporter of the Dean campaign.

Having said that, I would like to defend wndycty. I think it is useful to know that Clarence Page has published a column that in part is critical of Governor Dean. It affords us an opportunity to analyze the criticism and respond, both here and more directly by writing to Mr. Page or his paper. As wakfs noted, this column repeats the lie that Gore claimed to have invented the internet. It seems to me that pointing out this sort of falsehood in the column would be an effective response.

If wndycty claims to "like Dean", that is good enough for me. I think all of the candidates are worthy of my respect, and I especially like General Clark. I plan to be enthusiastically working for our nominee, and I look forward to working with wndycty AND Hep once that decision has been made.

In the meantime, let's try to remember that every criticism is not an attack, and pointing out flaws in someone's arguments is more likely to influence others than accusing them of base motives.

Schmendrick

[wndycty]

41. Thanks and more imporantly. . .

. . .there is a reason why Clark is my #1 and Dean is my #2. Whenever I post critical messages of Dean I think I am demonstrating why I prefer one candidate over the other. This is not "hating" as much as it should instuctive to Dean supporters as to the reasons why people prefer other candidates. . .getting defensive and calling people "haters" will do nothing to change my vote. BTW thanks schmendrick. . .at some point and time you and I will be behind the same candidate (whomever that may be) and I look forward to working with you.

[Hep]

43. I don't care why you support someone else.

I really don't. And you can't say why you support someone else while posting criticisms of Dean. Your saying why you DON'T support Dean.

I don't want to change your vote. I want to expose your true motivations.

[wndycty]

47. My motivations?

Wow. . .well go ahead expose them (since you seem to know them) and thought my vote was more important.

[Hep]

49. Your vote is nothing

Cote for whoever you want in the primary. I want you to vote for Clark if he is your man.

As for your motivations, it's rpetty obvious the way you single Dean out. Do you not wonder about anyone else's details, What about Clarks? If your goal was simply to say why you prefer Clark, which would be fine, you swould show how Clark HAS detailed plans for getting out of Iraq while Dean only has generalizations. But you didn't do that.

[Hep]

42. Whle I appreciate your approach

and enjoy every practically everything I read from you, I must share that I'm tired of refuting the same points over and over, points that serve no purpose other than to reflect on the writers ignorance and bias. There's a striking double standard in terms of expectations here. Dean is no more or less detailed in his policy on Iraq than any other cnandidate, and the claim that he fails to focus on nuts-and-bolts issues is flat out false. And while it is demonstrably false, the people here who link to and post these articles are not looking to be shown the errors of their ways. They just want to feign objectivity whiloe posting false concerns. This isn't wndycty's first day here.

But seriously, I do respect and LOVE your posts.

[Schmendrick54]

64. Thanks for your kind words, and your enthusiasm.

Hello Hep,

I truly appreciate your kind words, and I understand the frustration you feel about the need to refute points over and over again. When I get frustrated by this it helps me to remember that I am not alone. There were over 100,000 of us who attended the most recent Meetup, and together we have sent about 100,000 hand-written letters to people in Iowa and New Hampshire, which is one reason why Dr. Dean is leading in both places.

Every critical post here at DU is an opportunity for the supporter of the candidate being criticised to produce the evidence and arguments which rebuts that claim. The fact that thousands of us can share the burden of rebutting these claims is what will allow us to counteract the mercenaries at the Scaife-funded anti-think tanks which have corrupted our political discussions for so long. I value your insight in this process, but I urge you to remember that virtually everyone here at DU is on our side in the greater scheme of things. If we keep our focus and work with patience we will find a way to remove the malignancy which grows on our body politic.

Thanks again for your kind words, and best regards.

Schemndrick

[bearfartinthewoods]

69. a cult?? Naaa...it's way beyond cultish

it a full fledged freaking religion now, with tithing, a litergy and at least 3 commandments.

ANYTIME ANYONE SAYS WE SHOULD NOT DISCUSS ANY CANDIDATE'S NEGATIVES,
SUPPORT CEASES TO BE SUPPORT AND BEGINS TO BE WORSHIP.

[Hep]

72. Ladies and gentlemen, here is the respect that SOME dems give other dems.

Can you believe it?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. I hope you didn't take my post as being critical of your or your position

I was commenting on the points made in the article, and nothing more. I find it informative and instructive to read what people say about Dean and all the candidates, and hope you keep posting them.

[ibegurpard]

19. I've never seen a Dean supporter say "I would take a bullet for him."

But I got that from a Clark supporter the other day...scary!

:scared:

[OKNancy]

40. Are you sure you aren't mixed up about the post

from his security officer that was copied over here?

[bearfartinthewoods]

66. obviously not

thou shalt not post anything that does not flatter The Dean.

haven't you learned that yet?

[Hep]

70. How about this

Take a damn day and don't post anything about him at all. Can YOU do it?

[wakfs]

3. Another media whore...

...trying to make this story about Al Gore when it's about Howard Dean.

Gotta love that crack about Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet. Sheesh, give it a rest already.

[Hep]

5. Give it a rest?

It's going to get worse! The haters are selling out everything they hold dear in their efforts against Dean. Empty shells of people, that's what they are.

[paulk]

30. I have yet to see a national poll

with Dean above 20%. Do you really think you are going to win over that other 80% with this kind of hateful rhetoric?

Those empty shells vote, Mr. Hep.

[Hep]

36. The empty shells are the mindless critics

willing to sell out every ideal they USED to hold dear just to bash Dean.

I don't win people over with hateful rhetoric. I don't engage in it. But I do win people over. Be afraid of the Dean campaign if you want. Be hateful of it. But don't say we're trying to win anyone over with hate. We're fighting against hate.

And there;s a poll that just came out that has Dean over 20%, not that it matters.

[virtualobserver]

45. How about this one

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Dec. 5-7, 2003. N=402 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 5.

12/5-7 %
Howard Dean 25
Wesley Clark 17
Dick Gephardt 14
Joe Lieberman 10
John Edwards 7
John Kerry 7
Carol Moseley Braun 5
Al Sharpton 3
Dennis Kucinich 2
Other/None/No opinion 10


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm
.

[joeybee12]

6. Yeah, same old s**t

There is still plenty of time to dedicate to the "nuts and bolts" of issues as Page suggests. The first thing to do is get your base fired up, which is what Dean has done exceedingly well--that's the first thing to do,a nd Calrence Page ought to know that. if he doesn't, he's just as dumb as the rest of them. If he does know this, then he's just trying to fill space and justify his salary.

There is TOO MUCH media if you ask me, and people will say anything to fill space.

9. like this

The minute I read this line I was sure
"a status that can help him to become a major contender to run himself in the 2008 presidential campaign."

Yeah, that's why Gore endorsed Dean, to become a contender. Jeez.
As if he couldn't have been plenty of a contender in 2004 if he had wanted to be.

[kerryistheanswer]

8. Dean fanatics need to quit the propaganda

I'm amazed by how Dean supporters are so QUICK to post and gloat on favorable pieces why D.C. pundits but bash a pundit when somewhat negaitive on their almight savior.

I will support Dean if he wins but Clarence Page is absolutely right - where is the substance in Dean's message? All I ever hear is "you have the power". NO, Mr. Dean - you have the power to change things - if you had sound plans to do so.

Howard Dean told the rest to candidates to stop focusing on Iraq - that AMericans are more concerned about domestic issues. Isn't it DEAN who's used the "anti-war" rhetoric in all his stump speeches and brought it up in debate after debate to criticize his opponents? How convenient of him to take the high road last night.

The media has labeled Dean the frontrunner since the summer and he shouldn't complain about the media attention he's received. It's drowned out candidates with far more substance and with solutions to our problems.

I've been to the candidates websites and the only two with detailed plans on critical issues are Kerry and Kucinich. They also are the only ones with substance during these debates - Edwards and Gephardt show flashes.

Any press is good press in this awful media landscape. Substance has no place - just look at the rationale behine Koppel's asking of those trivial questions in the beginning - he didn't want the viewers to "dose" off.

If this election were about substance, Howard Dean would not be the frontrunner. That's the truth!!

[wndycty]

10. Exactly. . .

. . .I have no problem supporting Dean if he wins the nomination and I hope Dean supporters will extend that courtesy to Clark, Kerry, Gephardt, et al. However I am not too sure about working closely with his cult like fanatics who are a huge turn off.

[Hep]

13. Don't

Vote for Bush if you want. It's your soul.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. I plan to support and work for whoever is nominated

I have Dean signs in my car, and have contributed to his campaign, but if he is not the nominee, I'll change the signs and write out checks to someone else. The point is to get rid of Bush. Let's keep getting rid of Bush as our focus, and use all the good points brought up by every candidate to help us win in November 2004.

[wndycty]

17. We need more like that. . .

. . .and I appreciate your earlier comments. I'm 100% behind General Clark, but I am 110% behind the eventual nominee.

[adadem]

18. Exactly, too

Many Dean volunteers are strongly turning other Dems off to them and their candidate.

We had an event last week with our senator (who wanted to hear from us about the candidates we were leaning toward) and the Dean folks keep honing in on anyone not in their camp and surrounded them in groups of 3 or 4 to make the case for Dean, It was a total turnoff (I disliked Dean before, anywho). One high ranking (locally) union official spoke that even though his union endorsed a particular candidate he was going to support the candidate of his choice (not Dean). My God, after the event adjourned the Deanies went after him like a hawk after roadkill. A few of us coined them Deanibots.

Sad.

A lot will have to change in Dr. Dean before I can cast a vote for him.

[Hep]

20. heh

Many Dean volunteers are strongly turning other Dems off to them and their candidate.

Well, those people are stupid and shallow. Did I mention stupid?

Hopefully there are enough smart people to cancel the stupid people out.

[Cheswick2.0]

57. Hep cool it

you are not helping your candidate. I agree that the article was assinine. There was anti-Gore talking points there from 2000 which have been refuted and the writer should know better than to use them now against another candidate. His opinion is pathetic and snarky.
He throws loyalty to Lieberman in the mix too without mentioning the disloyalty Leiberman showed Gore and his ideas over and over during the recount and since.

Ignore the shit and get positive. Attacking other people will not help your candidate.

[Hep]

67. I'm not going to be positive today

I'm sorry. I'd like to be, but not today.

Anyone who bases their support of a candidate on the attitudes of a minority of their supporters is stupid. And I'm tired of the stupidity.

You see, no one can do their candidate any good on this board, so I'm done trying. If I were allowed by law to spend more than one hour per week on candidate advocacy in my workplace, I wouldn't even be here. But alas, FEC rules are eeeevil!

I'm aorry if I've offended you or hurt my credibility with you. I'm just tired of the constant BS. CONSTANT. And from people who lie and say they LIKE Dean, BUT...

[chimpymustgo]

21. You begged for MERCY from Deaniacs before posting an unworshipful

piece about Dean.

Look at the boards. Everybody BEGGING - please don't flame me...don't blame the messenger - regardless of whether they are posting fact or opinion about Howard Dean.

[wndycty]

22. Well that is the new environment of the DU. . .

. . .you have to seek some relief before you say anything about Dean.

[Hep]

23. Yeah right

You knew you were posting divisive BS. And you've yet to account for it

[wndycty]

24. Why is the truth divisive?

Because it does not praise Dean. Talk about mind control.

[ibegurpard]

25. What truth?

All I see are opinions.

[wndycty]

27. OK if Clarence Page is not telling the truth. . .

. . .would you please list the details of Dean's plan to get us out of Iraq. Remember we are looking for details here, that is what Clarence Page said was missing and I agreed with.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wndycty]

32. I am waiting on the details. . .

. . .why is that so hard? Clarence said Dean is not providing details. . .and I said it was the truth. If its not the truth I assume you can provide the details. Don't you think that would be a very effective way to shut me up on this?

[ibegurpard]

34. No one's trying to shut you up

We just want you to stop calling opinions "truth" and "fact."

[wndycty]

35. I will do that when you show me the proof that Clarence Page. . .

. . .was not telling the truth. The simplest way is to tell me the details of Dean's plan to get us out of Iraq.

[Hep]

38. Let's revisit what Page said, since you posted it and still don't get it

What details do you want? The article was twofold. Regarding the war, Dean plans to get the UN involved so that most of our troopc can come home. What candidate has given more specific details than that?

The other focus of the article is on Dean's alleged not focusing on nuts and bolts issues, which is patently false.

[wndycty]

44. So now I am stupid. . .

UN involved and troops come home is not a detail, its a generaliztion. The details are for what Page is looking for and until they are provided I will assume that Page was telling the truth and I was posting the truth when I started this thread.

[Hep]

48. Whatever.

You think that already, and I'm not going to change your mind. The painful thing is that you claim to like Dean, yet you set the bar so much higher for him than for anyone else. You call him out. I don't believe for a second that Dean is your number 2.

[wndycty]

50. Hey I am still waiting on those details. . .

:kick:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wndycty]

53. Let the record show: NO DETAILS WERE PROVIDED

That would have been so easy to post, right?

[Hep]

54. Thanks for proving my point

You type like you never read the article.

[Hep]

56. And further proof of your motivation

Did you check the DFA website?

Of course not.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_7pointplan

[Hep]

28. Ding! We have a winner!

Dean cultists know what words mean, Dean critics call everything they agree with "truth" or "fact" as if the dictionary says:

Truth: n. anything you agreee with. See fact.

Unbelievable. Are Dean critics also lobotomy patients?

[Hep]

26. There it is again, so I'll ask

Why do none of the Dean critics know what the words "Truth" and "Fact" mean?

[Hep]

12. Dean fanatics are just fine, thanks. Check YourSELF.

I'm amazed by how Dean supporters are so QUICK to post and gloat on favorable pieces why D.C. pundits but bash a pundit when somewhat negaitive on their almight savior.

I wish I could say I understand what you are saying here. I kinda get the jist of it. I don't gloat about positive articles. They're like record reviews. They are for entertainment only. But unfortunately people here think every article is a succinct, valid argument. It's just an example of how some folks can't think for themselves and don't care who does their thinking for them.

I will support Dean if he wins but Clarence Page is absolutely right - where is the substance in Dean's message? All I ever hear is "you have the power". NO, Mr. Dean - you have the power to change things - if you had sound plans to do so.

You don't have to fake like you like Dean in any way. It's just disingenuous when your message is so very clear. The substance is in Dean's message. Just because some morons can't find it doesn't mean it's there. Clarence Page talks like a man who can never find the G spot on a woman, if you know what I mean. "It's a myth". No, Page, you're just bad at finding it. To find the substance you have to be open to the message. Let me know when that happens.

Howard Dean told the rest to candidates to stop focusing on Iraq - that AMericans are more concerned about domestic issues. Isn't it DEAN who's used the "anti-war" rhetoric in all his stump speeches and brought it up in debate after debate to criticize his opponents? How convenient of him to take the high road last night.

You shouldn't say "all of his stump speeches" because candidates have one stump speech which they add to or subtract from as time moves on. I only say thi sbecause oit reflects a certain lack of understanding of the campaign. Anyway, the war has been part of his speech, but his point is that there's little new to add, that we have a slew of domestic issues that fall by the wayside. Dean's not saying we shouldn't talk about it, he's saying we don't need to devote all that time to it.

The media has labeled Dean the frontrunner since the summer and he shouldn't complain about the media attention he's received. It's drowned out candidates with far more substance and with solutions to our problems.

Take a look, Dean HAS BEEN the frontrunner. Not becaus of labels put on by the media. But because of ME. And people like me. For instance, how many letters have you written to undecided Iowans or New Hampshirites in support of your guy? I've written a handful, but I know people who have written dozens, hundreds of letters. How many Dean supporters have traveled from their home states to Iowa or NH to knock on doors for Dean?

Most importantly, why do you ignore successful campaigns like these and claim that it's about the media? I have my own theory.

If this election were about substance, Howard Dean would not be the frontrunner. That's the truth!!

You have a serious language problem. You don't even know what "truth" means.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. I respectfully disagree

I have read and printed Dean's position papers on a number of issues, and find them substantial and detailed-especially his plan for health care, which is my major concern. I'm not saying that other candidates don't have platforms that are detailed and substantial; its just that Dean's appeals to me the most. That other candidate's platforms appeal to you more is your perogative, and I defend your right to have a different opinion.

[Hep]

16. Don't defend their right to have a different opinion if it is a lie

You've been calm and fair and respectful, qualities I wish we could see in the people to whom you are replying. And yes, they have the right to support whomever they want for wheatever reason they want.

But when they lie, they need to be called on it.

[Ramsey]

31. A little OT, but...

What the hell is the Bush administration strategy for withdrawing from Iraq??

They got us in there with no post-war plan and no freaking idea how or when our troops were getting out of there. Hell, they thought the Iraqis were going to throw ticker tape parades and kiss out feet! Does the media or anyone in Washington crticize Bush for this monstrous blunder? No.

As far as Dean's Iraq strategy, he has given speeches on this subject, such as this one:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_cfr

[wndycty]

33. Please excerpt the details of Dean's plan to get us out of Iraq. . .

:kick:

[Hep]

46. Explain this to me

Why Dean? Why not Edwards, Kerry, Clark, etc? If you are truly trying to "support" your guy by posting this article, why don't you share why YOUR GUY is superior? Why do you just level this question at one guy, who you supposedly like?

[Hep]

55. LET THE RECORD SHOW

no accountability. Further proof as to the motivations of the OP.

[wndycty]

59. Hey I posted the column. . .

. . .I was told it was not based on facts, so then I pointed out that Clarence Page said that Dean provided no facts. I am not holding Dean to a different standard. I was told the article was not based on fact, then I asked to prove it was not based on fact and they way to do that was to provide details on Dean's plan. . .no details were provided.

[Hep]

62. Details were provided

and summarily ignored. But you're doing everything in your power to prove yourself to be something other than you say.

Bad that you believe this tripe, worse that you didn't take it upon yourself to do any research on your own.

The matter if the Iraq war was not the only thing mentioned in that article. I pointed it out, and you ignored that too. Tell me again how much you like dean. Haven't had a good laugh in the last five minutes.

[Schmendrick54]

58. Since you asked so nicely, ...

What follows is an excerpt of the speech cited by Ramsey from Governor Dean.

It does not provide "details" in terms of specific timetables for troop reductions, etc. As candidates like General Clark and Joe Lieberman said last night at the debate, such a detailed timetable is not practical. If one wishes to argue that this validates the "truth" of the statements in Page's column about lack of details in Dean's plan, I suppose I would agree, BUT, I would argue that it is also fair to say that this is pretty obviously "spin". Or are you suggesting that General Clark (or anyone else) has provided a detailed plan for getting us out of Iraq?

I would offer the following observation - If I discovered an opinion piece which painted one of the other Democratic candidates (Clark, for example) in an unfavorable light, I might choose to share it on DU, but if I thought it was in some way unfairly critical, I would make it a point to note that in my original post. For example, I might say "Here is a column by Clarence Page, in which he repeats the Right-Wing lie that Gore claimed to have invented the internet." It seems to me that such a post would be less likely to generate a flame fest than "Here's what Newsmax says about Gephardt -- Don't shoot me; I'm just the messenger"

Here is the section from the Dean speech whiich most directly pertains to Iraq for those who do not wish to read the whole thing:

I question the judgment of those who led us into this conflict this unfinished conflict that has made us, on balance, not more secure, but less. Although we may have won the war, we are failing to win the peace.

I believed then and I believe now that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was a just cause. But not every just cause requires that we go to war, especially with inadequate planning and without maximum support.

The Bush administration led us into war without convincing evidence that an imminent threat existed, without a strategy for securing nuclear, chemical and biological materials, without a plan for financing reconstruction, and without a clue how to consolidate the peace or unite the Iraqi people in support of democracy.

Today we face three critical problems, all connected with the manner in which we prosecuted the war. The first is accounting for the weapons of mass destruction, vital because of the implications for our own security as well as for the integrity and credibility of the United States and its leaders in the eyes of the world.

There are three possibilities. As the search continues, substantial stocks of these weapons may be found. In that case, we will still need to know why our intelligence failed and did not lead us to them more rapidly.

The other possibilities are that they will never be found because they no longer exist; or that they will never be found because they have already been stolen or transferred to others.

In any case, we need to know the truth.

Serious doubts about our integrity have been raised; not only in the streets of nations that do not know us well, but also in the parliaments and press rooms of countries that know us best. The checks and balances in the national security process in our Executive Branch have clearly broken down.

That's why it is imperative to have an independent, bipartisan, comprehensive and transparent investigation of how our intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was developed and selectively used to justify war in Iraq. In other words, what did the President know and when did he know it?

The second major challenge results from a failure to plan for peace as fully as we planned for war. General Shinseki's professional military advice that 200,000 troops would be needed was rejected. I would add at least 50,000 foreign troops to the force in Iraq.

It is imperative that we bring the international community in to help stabilize Iraq. If I were President, I would reach out to NATO, to Arab and Islamic countries, to other friends to share the burden and the risks.

We need to consider the impact on our guard and reserve troops operating in Iraq. And we should ask that the forces of foreign friends and allies increasingly assume police and security missions. Our active duty military forces are the best trained and best equipped of any military force in the world. We must continue to be able to train them and prepare for other potential war-fighting missions that arise in this dangerous world.

[wndycty]

60. Thats all I asked for and you have my respect. . .

. . .its people like you that will eventually win people over to Dean's camp because of how you handle situations like this.

[Hep]

63. So now Dean is #1

for you?

[wndycty]

65. No. . .

. . .but at least someone had enough respect for my position to talk to me and give me the info I was looking for, he did not attack or name call he just gave me an answer, I do not know why that was so hard for others.

[Hep]

68. It's hard because

you're so transparent. I gave you a link to details and you ignored it.

[WilliamPitt]

39. Pretty fundamental misunderstanding of Gore, imho

"Dean's maverick supporters might seriously question the ability of insiders like Gore to remain loyal to something larger than themselves--something like ideals."

This fellow doesn't know Al very well, does he.

[Logansquare]

52. I agree--when will the press stop taking cheap shots at Gore?

As to "Ah, and you wonder why so many people hate politics." The pervasive cynicism of the media has got to be helping...

[chimpymustgo]

61. I disagree. Gore had a reputation for being opportunistic.

Look, I loved him when he ran, and wanted him to run again. But I think he made a bad calculation in endorsing Dean so early. It looked more self-serving than anything.

He absolutely cannot think Dean is the best candidate. And even if he does, I think he owes it to the millions of Democrats who have supported him, and look to him as an elder statesman to indeed, play that role, and stay above the fray until at least some votes are cast and counted (imagine that!).

Gore has often been accused of not being loyal to staffers (Begala even referenced that). And I've heard (beyond the right wing talking points) that Gore has not built the relationships and loyalties that a politician of his level should have. That was even a reason given for why Dems did not rush to Florida to defend Gore during the recount.

Who did speak out for Gore then: Kerry. And look what he gets for it. I think Gore's endorsement was a slap at Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards Gephardt - and yes, indeed the Clinton wing of the party.

Gore was making a statement - and it was actually less about Dean than it was about Gore and the Democratic party. I'm surprised more Deanies aren't a little skeptical about Gore hitching his wagon to their star.

[WilliamPitt]

71. He had a reputation for saying he invented the internet, too

:eyes: