From where I sit---A mixed take on the Gore hype

[politicasista]

First of all, I am glad that Gore is talking about the issue of Global Warming and getting good press on it. However, the recent hype by the blogs and pundits surrounding his possible "08 considerations" is somewhat mixed for me.

My grandmother used to get Christmas cards from him (back when we were calling him Senator Gore.) and were happy when B. Clinton picked him as his running mate. I didn't get to vote in the 2000 election, but there was a vicious smear campaign in his own hometown of Carthage labeling him as "too liberal." (Some say that's how Blinky won TN). It was pathetic all around. Like the beginning on Fahrenheit 9/11, the election was bitter for those involved.

Fast forward to 2002. I know Gore spoke out against the war, endorsed Dean, made some fiery speeches (I would crack up listening to the anger in his voice), and in 2005, rescued hospital patients from NOLA during Katrina (Kudos to him on that. :) )

So what's the problem here? The problem isn't Gore. The problem is the "progressive" liberal blogsphere jumping on the Gore bandwagon just cause they think he is a changed man, along side their liberal views/causes, speaks out against Bush and not wondering about what happened or how he voted pre-2002 and at the same time gripe that Dems like Kerry aren't liberal enough.

I know he has said many times that he isn't running again (and leaving options open), but the question to ask is which Gore will show up? Pre-2002, or 2002-present? If pre-2002 Gore shows up, will we bash him like we do other more liberal Dems and turn on him, or stay on message when the smear campaign starts? Hint...

Hope no one takes this as Gore bashing, because I still like him like I do Kerry, but the new love affair some here have with him leaves me with mixed thoughts like people are setting themselves up for disappointment if the requirements for the liberal test aren't met (see truthout Rove story). Even in hindsight, Gore/Kerry would have made a nice ticket in 2000. Why do people need to pin them (or put down Kerry) against each other, just to promote him? :shrug:

I know the pundits, DU and the blogsphere isn't representative of the Dem electorate, it's just pathetic that people bash Democrats like Kerry who want to make things better while promoting Gore as the new liberal saint, all because he "fought" while Kerry supposedly "caved." As much as we dreaded them to do so, they both conceded, they both fought the good fight and still are.







:patriot:

[karynnj]

1. You stated that beautifully

I think I'm in about the same place as you on both Gore and the Gore supporters now.

I didn't like Gore in 1988 when he first ran. He was way too conservative and their was some nastiness in the campaign. In 1992, like many, the energy and positivity of the Clinton/Gore team was nice and though Clinton wasn't my 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice, I was excited they won. I did think the Democrats had a better chance with Bradley - because of Clinton. (This may have been because he was my Senator, who I usually agreed with and a really good person.) I suspect I never really "got" Gore, though I wanted him to win. I'm still not sure what he really believes on anything but global warming.

I think the media is trying too hard in projecting that he is entering the 2008 race. The new book's description doesn't lend itself to being a campaign book. It is on a far more basic issue - the rejection of science. Kerry did not put out a "New War" book in preparation to a 2004 run, he wrote "Call to service" which explained his ideas and what he thought needed to be done for a broad range of issues. (To some degree that book was over shadowed by "Tour of Duty".) Seeing that Gore has a major policy speech - I think today - I could look really stupid writing this on the day he signals he very well may run.

An interesting question if he doesn't run is will he endorse someone. I seriously don't think he would endorse Hillary and, in fact, think one reason for an endorsement would be if he could throw some substantial support to someone to stop her. He did consider both Kerry and Edwards in 2000 for VP. Bt he endorsed Dean in 2003 over them.

[politicasista]

4. Thanks.

I think if he doesn't run, he will endorse the candidate that will include global warming in his/her platform.

[Democrafty]

6. I think you are correct, and

I'm glad you brought up platforms, because my issue with Gore is that he doesn't seem to have one - or rather, my issue is that people are ignoring the fact that he doesn't have one.

Just remember not to give the "I hate politics" faction of the political blogosphere too much credit. What we should really be doing is listening to what Al Gore IS saying, instead of weaving some crazy, elaborate narrative about what he's not.

[Blaukraut]

7. That's just it!

Gore hasn't championed anything but global warming recently. I haven't heard him speak out on anything else BUT that. While that is certainly an important issue to address, it definitely is not enough on which to base a candidacy for the presidency.

[Democrafty]

11. He has more or less said as much.

That he cares about one issue, and that's what he cares about. Great.

I don't understad how you can like somebody and trust somebody, and then not believe him when he says, "I'm a recovering politician," or "I don't expect to be a candidate ever again." To me, it seems like the Gore hype is less about Al Gore and more about, well, getting hyped up about something.

[karynnj]

16. Also in the same Gore RS article recently

that was hyped here because people saw it as proof he was running, he spoke of wanting to make global warming and related issues strong enough that someone else could run on them.

[wisteria]

2. Some of the reasoning behind those who are pushing Gore is faulty.

He spoke out against President Bush and the Iraq War a year after the war began, so that means he is a changed man? He supported Dean, so that means he was right? He has become loud and angry over one issue- Iraq, so that means he is actually passionate? And, other points or pluses as they see it in support of VP Gore are down right childish. You know, he fought and someone else didn't blah, blah, blah. Which of course ignores all the differences in the two elections. He knows how to fight and other don't. And, he is the real President. Well, the last time I checked, he did concede. Gee, I want to know why he did that. He should have taken on the whole Supreme Court and called they out for not letting all the votes be counted.


I like VP Gore too. I do think he was cheated out of the Presidency. Our world would be in better shape today if he were the President. However, Gore is still Gore, and I have seen no real indications that he still isn't the very moderate man he once was.

[karynnj]

3. He spoke out before the war - though what he said was

not all that different than Kerry's concurrent comments. He did say he was against the IWR in September 2002, but the Senators then negotiated some changes. He NEVER said that he would vote for the amended version -- so he is able to say that he was against the IWR and the war. There is no ambiguity there. With Dean there was more ambiguity, as he sounded more willing to consider war in September 2002, but on the IWR he just said he was for Biden/Lugar which Kerry and ,of course Biden, were for too. It was not the one voted largely due to Lieberman caving.

The problem is when they conflate IWR with being for the war. The problem is that MANY who voted that way did it accepting that they were voting for war - even some Democrats. Kerry and Harkin are the two I see as clearly trying to give the president the power needed to force the issue and resolve the problem diplomaticly and being caught by a President who would lie. Kerry did speak out in the early months of 2003 against the war before it started - and his statement in the NYU speech posted by Partisan - is very clear on why he voted as he did. (So clear, Clinton essentially repeated it recently as Hillary's and all non-Lieberman Democrats' position.

Neither Gore or Kerry would have taken the country to war. With others it's not so clear. In 2004, Hiallary said there would have been no vote had it been known there were no WMD, but unlike Kerry, she didn't speak up before the war demanding the inspectors be allowed to complete their work. Her 2004 comment was when it was already known the war was a disaster. Edwards was pro-war in October 2003 - even when it was known there were no WMD, he said there were other reasons. (Between Hillary and Edwards, the difference may have been that he had to speak because he was running and she didn't.)

The simple fact is that being in the Senate puts you on record as does running for President. Gore and Dean may have voted as Kerry did - but you can't prove that, so they have more flexibility. Likewise, Hillary is not on record from 2003, when the success of the war was unknown, on whether she would have gone to war even if there were no WMD. Kerry is and he wouldn't (except for those who misconstrue the GC comment), Edwards is and he may have gone to war given his 2003 comments- though he's now acting like he was not as pro-war as he was.

As a Kerry supporter, I would not challange Gore's credentials on this - they are solid. He did speak up and took a lot of grief for doing so. It is better to give him credit - because he deserves it. Arguing only that Kerry did speak out and he wouldn't have sent soldiers to war. (The media created confusion by repeating a confusing new conference and ignoring the spoeech labeled "MAJOR POLICY SPEECH". This is an example of the media stifling Kerry's message.) The NYU speech has some very quotables lines on this - Thanks again, Partisan.

As to conceding the elections, the party let both Kerry and Gore down by not having its act together. Each conceded when there was nothing viable they could do. The Presidential candidate has many things he/she needs to do. Managing the nuts and bolts of the election process was never one of them. This is beyond unfair to both. As to Gore fighting while Kerry didn't - 118,000 is NOT 537. Also, Gore had ballots that were not counted due to chads that could be exaimined. Kerry had people who left the line or votes changed in the machine - both were not countable. In terms of what they did after the election - both have chosen they were worthy of our trust by doing what they are doing in spite of being cruelly cheated.

[politicasista]

5. Exactly n/t

[wisteria]

8. I remember that speech. But in it his main point was a vote this

important should not be undertaken during and election period. And, yes he did have the same comments that Kerry did, but conveniently, he didn't have to vote on it and I always thought his main opposition was based on the politicized atmosphere the vote was to be taken in.

[ProSense]

10. Well said!

There is no ambiguity in Kerry's speech before the vote. There is not ambiguity in the IWR version they voted on, nor the signing statement Bush attached to it!

[Blaukraut]

9. well put, politicasista

If one's choice for presidential candidate is strong within his own rights, there really should not be a need to tear down other candidates.
I like Gore too, now. Didn't so much in 2000, but he was still preferable to a lot of other potentials. The fact that he passed over Kerry in his VP choice, upset me a lot. Lieberman was a bad, bad choice!
Still, Gore's coy rumblings in Australia (or wherever the hell he made a non denial remark) is ticking me off. Whath as he done lately, other than speak out on global warming, that would make him a good pres. candidate? Has he said anything at all on any other issue? Not to my knowledge.

[politicasista]

12. Thanks K

I never went to a campaingn rally, but I was fortunate to see Gore/Lieberman after delivering a speech at my college.

I didn't get to shake their hands, but some dudes made some observations about them both. They noticed that Gore seemed well, busy, while Lieberman was (cough) cool, smiling, waving, and shaking hands. As the Gore motorcade drove off, Lieberman waved in our direction (Gore looked off, talking to an aide), but it's was nice to get a glimpse of a Pres/VP ticket.

[MH1]

18. Gore was my first pick in 92

and would probably be my second pick after Kerry for 2008 (although I would give all the other candidates a thorough look before deciding for sure).

I wasn't very politically astute at the time and we didn't have the information as readily available that we do today. But, I came to politics as a single issue environment voter, so Gore was the natural choice for me in 92. I'd read Earth in the Balance and thought it was excellent. The book covers a broad swath of environmental issues, not just the threat of global warming (which I think even many environmentalists believed was further away from becoming a crisis then, than it seems now). I liked Gore when I saw him speak, and I was happy to have the opportunity to shake his hand after an event - but it was a rope-line thing and doesn't remotely compare to my recent Kerry experiences. ;-)

I was disappointed when I realized that Clinton was going to win the nomination, and ecstatic when Clinton chose Gore as veep. Again I didn't have much political acuity, but it seemed to me that Gore did well as veep, particularly in international diplomacy, which I was starting to see as equal in importance to the environmental issues.

When Monica-gate blew up I was praying for Clinton to resign, so Gore would have a chance to establish his own cred as president before the election. I respected Clinton immensely (and still do) for hanging in there and not giving in to the idiots - but given what's happened since, I think the country would have been better off if he'd resigned. Who knew that Gore wouldn't trounce Bush though? By all rights he should have. I don't blame Gore for that; of course I think he could've run a better campaign and I think he may deserve more blame for his loss than Kerry does for 2004; but that's all beside the point. The media were totally played by the repuke machine, to sell Americans a total moron who is dangerous to our future, over a decent, respectable, intelligent and full qualified public servant.

Well this has turned into a longer answer than I intended, but my point is that I think Gore is qualified by his experience as veep, and I feel he will be strong in international diplomacy and operate with many of the same goals and techniques as Kerry. As veep he did a lot of work with trying to consolidate federal agencies and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse, so I think he has a good handle on the nuts and bolts of governing. He'd be a competent and probably a very good president. (Stellar, by the standard set by the current idiot.)

Personally, I really doubt he will run. It must be flattering to have people calling for it though. And it can't be hurting his revenue from the movie and now the book, to keep the option out there. One defense I've occasionally made of Kerry not bowing out of 2008 (even if he never intended to run in 2008), is that by keeping the option open, gives him more media exposure and thus helps the other work he is doing - which is good work and worthy of the exposure.

So, it doesn't bother me much to see the hype, or for Gore to keep playing along. Of course, some of his supporters can be right annoying at times....but I've heard the same said of other candidates' supporters, at times. ;-)

[Mass]

13. Great post - One additional remark. It amazes me that the same people

who criticize Kerry for being stiff and not good when he speaks would like Gore.

I was listening to his speech today on global warming and national security. Great speech when it comes to the content (nothing we have not yet heard from Kerry when it comes to national security, but very detailled, and clear about global warming, what needs to be done, and what can possibly be done - Gore is really doing a great job on this issue.). But I was surprised by his delivery, very monotonous, and, if I had not been passionate about this issue, I would have been very bored.

[politicasista]

14. Interesting

I thought he would have improved on that like the MLK day 06 speech. I remember Kerry was criticized (see Howard U 04) for speaking the same way.

[karynnj]

15. Which is strange because Kerry never speaks

in a monotone. I had enough trouble with Gore's speaking that (post 2002) I simply read his speeches. They "sound" much better that way. He has a speed and a tone that make me think he's speaking to not very clever fouth graders who haven't been behaving.

[Mass]

17. You described it perfectly.

I am not bashing him here. After Kerry, he is the person I would prefer to see win the nomination, but his delivery is really weird.

[ginnyinWI]

19. It's the Far- Left's problem, as I see it, not any person they target.

They're very idealistic and are always searching for the perfect candidate who is going to lead them all into the Promised Land. So the less they know about the real person, the more these people can attribute all sorts of qualities to them. I know they did it to Clark right after the election, and probably to Dean before the election--I don't know I wasn't on the blogs then. And now Gore is up for sainthood--because he's given those red-meat speeches and bashed * but good. That seems to be what counts the most--a lot of emotion and anti-establishment rhetoric.

They look at Kerry or anybody else who is in office and casting actual votes and talking about what they think about issues, and they immediately find reasons to "disqualify" them --nope, not perfectly aligned with MY VIEWS, so out they go on the trash heap!

It's the same way when they judge the media. It's all or nothing: "I'll never watch ABC again!!!!" They are so liberally pure that eventually they will have nobody to listen to besides their own small echo chambers. And at that point they will be no better than the freeps who listen to Rush.