MoDo et al. doing the Lucy-football on GORE, tempting him IN to destroy him later

[UTUSN]

She admits we/the world would have been better off with him than Shrub without acknowledging her role. There's a treasury of her snarkiness against him within CONASON's item, plus a reference to The Howler's real time chronicles of the general media's GORE-bashing.

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/03/02/al_gore/

Why do journalists suddenly love Al Gore?
After they tempt him into the presidential race, they'll probably try to destroy him again. And he knows it.

By Joe Conason

.... Had the recent adoration of Gore been accompanied by any sign of healthy introspection among those who once savaged him, there might be reason to hope that they've learned something from this extraordinarily costly lesson. But as usual, mainstream commentators prefer to write as if they suffer from severe amnesia (as well as database deprivation) -- and to pretend that everyone else does, too.

Consider Maureen Dowd, a perceptive and often witty columnist who understands very well how destructive the Bush presidency has been to her beloved country. Just the other day Dowd acknowledged in the New York Times that we and the world would be in considerably better shape today had Gore -- whom she described as "prescient on climate change, the Internet, terrorism and Iraq" -- ascended to the Oval Office instead of the current occupant. But she neither noted the guilt of the media in that travesty nor recalled her own starring role. This compilation of her past columns on the subject of Gore, replete with false accusations and trendy sneering, is must reading.

Particularly catty and revealing is a quote from a 1999 column in which she suggested that Gore's environmentalism raised questions about his masculinity. But that was simply one episode among dozens that continued well after the 2000 election cycle. When the former vice president dared to voice his anger about the bloody debacle in Iraq two years ago, the Times columnist sweetly lumped him in with "the wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party." He had to be nuts to be upset about the lies that led us into war, didn't he? ....

The answer may be found, of all places, in the Note, that snarky weblog on the ABC News site, which often betrays the true emotions roiling the minds of mainstream journalists. Said the Note, in explaining the recent spate of positive coverage of the old press nemesis: "Basically, the political press wants to tempt Al Gore into the race, and then they will destroy him as a flip-flopping, exaggerating, stiff loser. And Gore knows this." ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[n2doc]

1. She still refers to him as "ozone man"

And I am sure if Gore read that article he was not fooled by her false contrition.

[KittyWampus]

2. Maureen Dowd is a sophmoric hack whose primary concern in writing columns is using

her resultant press credentials to get invited to all the right parties. The modicum of talent she has resides in a limited capacity for cleverness which quickly becomes tiresome since the core of her writing is nothing but gossip and innuendo.

[glitch]

3. Style, even attractive style, becomes a bore when there's no substance behind it.

Attractive style with substance can become legendary. But substance requires empathy and it's possible that can't be learned. It certainly can't be faked.

[The Count]

5. How true! Thanks!

Dowd & al are too self-involved to actually know what they are talking about or care about the consequences of their writing.
Good for Conason for calling her out!

[BlueManDude]

4. Al Gore is a different person than the one who ran in 2000

He spent that campaign in a fruitless battle to gain the plaudits of the Beltway pundits. He has no such concerns now.

[The Count]

6. He is not THAT different - although more experienced.

When I think of the solid activist support war voting Kerry had, and the complete lack of it vote fighting Gore had in 2000 I get very POed. I hope Gore enjoys the courting these days and then makes the best decision. For himself.Whichever that may be.

[JNelson6563]

7. I don't think they could do it this time

Anyone who's caught President Gore's speeches since 2000 knows he has been speaking very plainly on all things. He has knocked the snot out of Team Bush on almost every major issue and has done so very boldly. He is now a man unencumbered by such worries as "what will they think?" He has been proven right so many times he would certainly be justified in not caring one wit what "they" think/say.

Besides, many who were suseptible to the Get Gore tactics of 2000 are not so anymore. I also think the press realizes this too, at least to some extent.

Julie