Could Gore Even Win Again?

by Chris Bowers, Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 04:38:04 PM EDT

David Brock's seminal work, The Republican Noise Machine, opens with a description of a textbook case of exactly how the Republican Noise Machine goes about tearing down a prominent progressive figure. In this case, the target of the Republican Noise Machine was Al Gore, and his crime was intuiting the presence of the Noise Machine during a December 2002 interview. From the book:
Two years after the election, Gore gave an extraordinary interview to the New York Observer that could be read as an explanation of what happened to his presidential campaign. Gore charged that conservatives in the media, operating under journalistic cover, are loyal not to the standards and conventions of journalism but, rather, to politics and party. Gore said:

"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party. Fox News Network, the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh -- there's a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media.... Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this Fifth Column in their ranks -- that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective as stated by the news media as a whole(....)

Something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, the Washington Times and the others. And then they'll create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they all start baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they've pushed into the zeitgeist. And then pretty soon the mainstream media goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and lo and behold, these RNC talking points are woven into the fabric of the zeitgeist(....)"

True to form, the right-wing media greeted this factual description with yet another frenzy of repetitive messaging portraying Gore as crazy. Speaking of Gore on FOX News, The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes said, "This is nutty. This is along the lines with, you know, President Bush killed Paul Wellstone, and the White House knew before 9/11 that the attacks were going to happen. This is -- I mean, this is conspiratorial stuff." Also on FOX, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said of Gore, "I'm a psychiatrist. I don't usually practice on camera. But this is the edge of looniness, this idea that there's a vast conspiracy, it sits in a building, it emanates, it has these tentacles, is really at the edge. He could use a little help.""It could be he's just nuts," Rush Limbaugh said of Gore. "Tipper Gore's issue is what? Mental health. Right? It could be closer to home than we know.""He [Gore] said it's a conspiracy," Tucker Carlson said on CNN's "Crossfire.""I actually think he's coming a little unhinged," The Weekly Standard's David Brooks, now at the New York Times, said of Gore on PBS. (p. 6-7)

For pointing out one of the great political truths of our time, Al Gore was slimed. While statements of this sort from Gore over the past four years have caused him to grow significantly in my estimation, and I imagine in the estimation of many others in the netroots, the sliming that he took for saying them did not do much to help his favorable / unfavorable ratings, which were already damaged from the sliming he took for his outspoken statements against the war. Although there has not been any public polling on gore over the last two years, his most recent numbers are not strong:
Poll	  Fav	  Unfav     Date
Fox	   47	   44	    1/04
CBS	   31	   46	   12/03
Gallup	   49	   45	    6/03
That is pretty weak. For the sake of comparison, here are the latest numbers from those same three outlets for Hillary Clinton.
Poll	  Fav	  Unfav     Date
Fox	   52	   37	    6/05
CBS	   36	   31	    5/05
Gallup	   53	   43	    7/05
That is a pretty significant gap in favor of Hillary in each of the polls listed: +12 in Fox, +10 in CBS, and +6 in Gallup. In fact, the Gallup poll in May had Hillary at 55/39, giving her a 12-point lead.

Now, although there has been no recent polling on Gore's favorables, it seems pretty clear from the recent Fox trial heat that his favorables have not risen back to Hillary's level (or even John Kerry's level). Compare Gore's performance to that of Kerry and Clinton in recent trial heats wth Giuliani and McCain:

McCain
  49	 Clinton      38
  53	 Kerry	     36
  57	 Gore	     29

Giuliani
  50	 Clinton      39
  52	 Kerry	     36
  55	 Gore	     32
Now, except for helping Faux push their Republican inevitability line, these trials heats are pretty useless. The only matchup that has any chance of happening is Clinton-Giuliani, and even that is a longshot. Still, they are useful for comparison purposes among Democratic candidates, and for being able to deduce current public opinion on Al Gore despite the lack of recent polling data.

Gore is performing 17 and 12 points worse than Clinton, and 10 and 7 points worse than John Kerry. Now, givent hat Al Gore has just as high name ID has Clinton and Kerry (100%), given these numbers it is pretty safe to deduce that Gore has lower favorables than both Clinton and Kerry. And Kerry's aren't great:

Poll	  Fav	  Unfav     Date
Fox	   51	   38	    12/04
CBS	   40	   39	    11/04
Gallup	   42	   48	    7/05
Gore's favroables just can't be very good right now. They are probably even lower than they were two to three years ago. Now, not long ago, in early 2003, Hillary Clinton's favorables were roughly the same as Gore's probably are now, and she clearly has recovered. However, she holds a strong advantage that Gore currently does not: she has consistently remained a national figure. Moving national opinion on a well-known topic or personality is possible, but very difficult. It would appear that Gore has not been able to recover while Hillary has, largely because the media only seems to talk about Gore when they want to slime him, ala the above quote. This means that from day one, any Gore campaign would be facing an uphill battle to restore a positive public image, and thus would start at a tremendous disadvantage even tot he candidates who will not be national figures before the primaries begin. They will simply have to define themselves. Gore would have to re-fine himself, which is much more difficult.

Gore has been thoroughly slimed by the Republican Noise Machine, and as of yet not only has he not recovered, he might even be sinking further. Like many others before him, he was slimed in a completely unfair manner, and mostly for telling the truth. However, that does not change the fact that any Gore run would be extremely difficult right now, and that nay poll where he trails is not exaggerated by the Incumbent Rule or anything else. In fact, because he has 100% name ID, if anything, his deficits in current poll would be exaggerated.

It is really too bad. I wish we had been around at the time to defend him. We might have helped introduce the term "Noise Machine" into the national political discourse, and created a real national discussion on the issue. I also like a lot of what he has said since 2001, and think he would be an outstanding president. However, when looking at a possible Gore candidacy, his near-total denials on the subject are not the only hindering factor. Like Howard Dean before him, simply telling the truth to the media's face may have made him unelectable.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

  • 122 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

122 Comments

Shadow_head_small
blocking the noise machine
we've already seen efforts from Google(tm) and Yahoo(tm) to eliminate the sole opinion from the general discussion.  By eliminating single bloggers from their news results and by selecting right wing sources ofer left wing respectively.

Is this the beginning of a push from the elite big business bosses to silence the noise machine?   Do we have a back-up to the blogs?  Should we be relying so heavily on them?  Do Progressives need more tools?  If so who will provide them?

 

by goplies 2005-10-09 04:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: blocking the noise machine
Why such a polite term for it? Its not noise, its propaganda.

And yes, big business will try to submarine the beast if the American public cotton to its presence.

The best thing Gore can do is to lead an initiative to impeach George Bush. Do that, and we'll have our new president. That simple. Griping about the media is trite. Let them gripe about you, instead.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-10 03:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Quick Response to Chris's diary post
(goplies: I am hitchhiking a bit here. thanks for the ride :))

Chris,

  1. the fundamental problem with your analysis is this. Your entire argument hinges on Gore's favorablity/unfavorability figures, which are missing.

  2. backward deduction of these figures from the head-to-head matchups with JM and RG is a very weak substitute, at best:
  • because these latter numbers are co-related more the the relative favorability of the matchups
  • some 20-30 Million new voters were registered during the 2004 election cycle, ie. some 10-15% of the electorate voted/registered for the first time, and they are highly unlikely to know Gore all that well, given that they probably did not pay much attention to the 2000 election, and Gore has stayed out of limelight for nearly all of these approximatel 5 years.
  • And, add to that, the fact the MSM has continued only to take potshots at Gore, which results in weak unfavorability (which is generally reversible). I am willing to bet that if you take a fav/unfav survey today, over 10-12% would have "no opinion or unsure" about Gore, and another similar number will poll "weakly unfavorable" (about 30%, mostly hardcore WINGNUTS will go with "strongly unfavorable", but that holds for most visible democrats, anyway).
  • My point is that due all of these factors, especially the large number of new registrations, your backward deduction is not a very reliable approach in this case. You'll just have to wait until someone polls fav/unfav for Gore.

  1. I predict that such a poll would give these numbers (based on some general feel from the data at your links): 43-45% Favorable, 43-45% unfavorable, 10-15% unsure (for Gore). (BTW, that CBS poll you quote is kind of flawed, compared to the other two for this reason: it allows the option "undecided", which gives many people the escape route to avoid answering the question. And Gore's number on this wer rather high. So, the CBS data point is not very reliable in this case. More in my detailed reply later).

  2. Finally, when you say "not only has he not recovered", exactly what opportunity has Gore had in the last approx. 5 years, other than his DNC convention speech to address a large audience? In lieu of that, how could we expect him to recover his numbers during this period of time?

  3. "he might even be sinking further.": as far I can see, there is no direct or directly linkable evidence to suggest that they are sinking further. There are numbers showing that his relative numbers are dropping slightly, but that is probably because his opponents are improving, and also partly because people's memory of him is fading.

Given all of these considerations, and in particular the missing critical piece of data, in my considered opinion, drawing a conclusion as strong as electability is not all that justified.

I will write a more detailed responce with more numbers and analysis below. But please feel free to rebut some points here.

I welcome other readers as well to ring in their opinions.

thanks
Neo

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-10 06:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Response to Chris: Part 2
Now, let's look at Gore's most recently polled Fav/UnFavs figures:

Fox News/Op. Dyn

    1/04     47     44     9     -      
    8/03     47     43     9     1      
    12/02     42     45     13     -      

CNN/USAT/Gallup:

      6/27-29/03      49      45      6          
    12/16-17/02     49     45     6        
    9/23-26/02     46     47     7

A quick read tells you that Gore's unfavorability figures have as of now stabilized around 44-45.

For comparison, Bush's figures just before the 2004 election were (FNOD; Link):

      10/30-31/04       48       47       5       -       
    10/29-30/04     47     46     7     -      
    10/28-29/04     47     45     8     -      
    10/27-28/04     49     45     6     -    

So, Bush's unfavorablity hovered around 45-47 leading upto the 2004 election.

Moral of the story: People DO get elected with disapproval figures in the mid 40s.

With some positive and nationwide exposure, Gore can push back his numbers to where Hillary's are, i.e. high 30s. Important fact is that there are 2+ years for him to do that.

In those head-to-head match ups, yes, Gore did fare 8.5 and 6 % points worse than Hillary (your figures of 17 and 12 need to halved to account for double counting, as I explain below) when pitted against our two hallowed and caped Republican crusaders:

McCain
  49     Clinton      38
   57     Gore         29

Giuliani
  50     Clinton      39
  55     Gore         32

But, Gore has been out of the limelight for 5 years, and some 20-25 million new voters (of 2004 vs 2000) presumably don't know Gore all that well, but are routinely exposed to McCain and Giuliani (to a lesser degree, but his 9/11 impressions linger) in positive light, who will these folks tend to pick for President, when you ask that question?

How can you send Gore's potential candidacy into the purgatory using these figures and rather flimsy arguments? The fact is, you simply CAN NOT, especially this early in the game

More analysis later.

----

Double counting: How?

Your calculation of 17 and 12 points (of advantage for Hillary over Gore, when pitted againt JM and RG) amounts to double counting.

Let me illustrate with an extreme case scenario: (Republican R, Dems B1 and B2). Suppose we have:

R Vs B1: 0 to 100
R Vs B2: 100 to 0

Then, R's edge over B1 is -100, and R's edge over B2 is 100, and the difference between these two numbers is 200! So, these types of calculations (differencing two head-to-head matchup numbers) are on a base of 200. To get a more accurate, percentage-like, way to state, you need to halve the result.

Let's calculate in our case:
McCain
  49     Clinton      38  = 11 points edge
   57     Gore         29   = 28 points edge

(28-11)/2 gives 8.5% edge for Clinton over Gore (when pitted against McCain)

Giuliani
  50     Clinton      39  = 11 points
  55     Gore         32   = 23 points

(23-11)/2 gives a 6% edge for Clinton over Gore (when pitted against Giuliane)

Why should you report 8.5% and 6% instead of 17 and 12?

Chris, you're running for office. Suppose that your primary opponent is named Kennedy and your likely GOP opponent is called Nixon, and suppose that you are polling:

Nixon Vs Kennedy: 50 to 50
Nixon Vs Bowers: 55 to 45.

How much better is Kennedy doing compared to Bowers (when pitted against Nixon)? I'd guess that you'd say 5% points, and not 10 points. Evidently, that would be the accurate way to report this derived figure.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-10 01:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Chris, Yes, Gore can absolutely win again!
My comprehensive line-by-line response to the main post can be found here:

Yes, Gore can absolutely win again!

thanks.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-16 06:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: blocking the noise machine
Sounds like we need some new search engines.  The new book Off Center by Hacker and Pierson apparently talks about the coordinated use of politicians of the right stripe, think tanks, media, lobbyist organizations to control the political process from an ideological minority.  One of the first things we need to do is marshall our resources.  There are progressives with deep pockets.  It's long been said that we need our own media network.  Why shouldn't that include a super new search engine.

IMO, Google has not been working well as a search engine ever since they changed their algorithms in order to make a profit.  There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but when usability goes down the tubes and people start noticing that usability has gone south, that's usually the time for a new kid on the block.

(I'm aware of all the cliches in my post.  As first one then another appeared, I began to wonder how many I oould put together.)

by workingclassanna 2005-10-10 06:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: blocking the noise machine
I created a search engine by hand.  Let me see what I can do to make a simpler one to manage.

Do you think it should have reviewers?  Or just a straight index?

   

by goplies 2005-10-10 11:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Why Gore wont win
Sorry if this was mentioned, but the reason Gore wont win, which kind of has to do with media: Jay Leno and Dave Letterman. Heard one of his jokes this week, went something like this: "Al Gore gave a fiery speech saying that our demoracy is in dangerous. Tipper said to him 'Al just pay the pizza man, and let's eat." Dave Letterman: "I dont want to say that Gore is a weak speaker, but as he was talking squirrels started climbing on him." Al Gore is a boring speaker. That's what people think, that's what is put out there to this day. DOesnt matter that it is wrong, it's what people think unfortunately.
by jj32 2005-10-09 05:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Disagree
That's defeatism, jj32. And, quite disappointing coming from you.

Get me Leno and Letterman on the phone, and I'll work them to balance their jokes for the opponent. Give me the money to hire a good joke writer, I'll inject jokes in to the popular talk countering those that make Gore look poor. Get him some television time, and Gore will come to life with his much improved oration (perhaps needs to be made a bit more succinct for "joe sixpack", but a few good speech writers can iron those aspects out).

There is no denying that the job will be tough, but just how easy did 2004 turn out, after a "fresh" face other than Gore ran?

The RWNM will try to rip the face off of anyone and everyone. At least with Gore, we know for the most part what they'll throw, and we can wage a serious counter-offensive. Trust me, there is little new, i have seen the stuff they're throwing at Gore for the last 15 days. Nothing new, just recycled. Can be easily countered.

Another fundamental difference between 2000 and now, as Chris points out is, we have two million netroots volunteers and activists now, and which we didn't really have (at least in large numbers) back then.

If you belive Gore will be a great President, one that can not only undo the damage since 2001, and but can even advance the nation further, and I do, then don't surrender. Buckle up and fight back, and the results will follow.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-09 07:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why Gore wont win
Let's face, Leno and Letterman have been vampires for ages, living off the blood of their "audience." No squirrel would even come near them.
by blues 2005-10-09 07:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why Gore wont win
No squirrel would even come near them.

Ooh damn, that's telling 'em! I think.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2005-10-09 10:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why Gore wont win
I am with U man..........
by progdem223 2005-10-10 05:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why Gore wont win
You're right.  I wish people would start telling jokes about Bush.  That would sink him.
by Winston Smith 2005-10-10 11:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Woah. A terrible post.
The polls miss intensity of favorability/unfavorability.

Most apolitical folks I know don't think much either way of Gore; most (Democrats) make a snarky remark about how much better life would be if here were President.

Further, I think Gore would have a fairly easy time re-defining himself, precisely because (a) he hasn't been a national figure for years and (b) the media would be itching to see a "new" Gore -- and the contrast to the old Gore would be great...

by Democratic Wing 2005-10-09 05:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Woah. A terrible post.
Bush described Gore in 2000 as a person who re-invents himself. That is a negative. He's gone from pro-life blue dog democrat, to DLC Joe Lieberman clone, now he's a progressive? I'm sorry, but I think the guy's a phony. Of course so are all politicians, but Gore can't hide it.
by zt155 2005-10-09 06:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Woah. A terrible post.
Well MY crystal ball says that Gore is 100% USDA Prime.

The Bushes, Clintons, et. al. are the Mad Cows.

All of my tea leaves concur as well, Mr Smartypants.

So there.

by blues 2005-10-09 07:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Woah. A terrible post.
People do change their opinions over time.  It's a natural part of maturing and getting older.
by Adam T 2005-10-09 10:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Woah. A terrible post.
  1. Gore has been a consistent progressive since 1993, when I started observing him closely. Even before that he was sufficiently liberal.

  2. From the 1970s itself, Gore was championing the advent of the internet , science, and technology. And that alone itself makes him a progressive, by definition.

  3. In the early days, when Gore was associated with the DLC, the DLC stood for economic centrism and not for war-mongering as it does today.

I recommend the reader to this dKos diary: Why I hope Gore is our next President, Sun Sep 25th, 2005 at 16:03:49 PDT. link, as well as these Gore speeches to judge Gore' "progressive credentials":

  • Pre-Iraq war speech (an absolute MUST READ) ("Real" audio here)
  • dKospedia collection of speeches

Thanks.
by NeoLiberal 2005-10-09 10:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Woah. A terrible post.
these are Stolen Bush Votes from florida By the democrats
Edwards       646 votes - 8 %
    Clark       1887 votes - 24 %
    Gore       3685 votes - 48 %
    Clinton       366 votes - 4 %
    Feingold       666 votes - 8 %
    Other       178 votes - 2 %
  No Freakin' Clue       194 votes - 2 %    7622 Total Votes
by progdem223 2005-10-10 05:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
86% of Statistics are Made Up
Heh.

I think the above post places too much faith in polls...So much so as to be nearly devoid of meaning/value.

by Democratic Wing 2005-10-09 05:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: 86% of Statistics are Made Up
Not only that, they're flat out wrong to boot. I have no problem with made-up statistics, so long as they are correct.
by blues 2005-10-09 07:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: 86% of Statistics are Made Up
"I have no problem with fabricated numbers, as long as they are correct".

Can I quote you on this?

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-10 10:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: 86% of Statistics are Made Up
I dunno. Let me ask my consultants about it first, okay?
by blues 2005-10-10 08:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The Gore / Nixon variant
While Mr. Brock certainly scores points on his analysis and Mr. Bowers' reflection on Gore's favorables vs. H. Clinton's are interesting they still fail to address the fact that Nixon's favorables after losing the California Governor's race in 1962 should have completely tanked, especially after his infamous, "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore."

The fact of the matter is 8 years in the political universe is eons.  The dynamic would be completely different and I don't give a damn about the right wing "noise machine."  As for the fragmented media world we live in now as compared to 8 years ago there is no comparison.  Also, the number of eligible voters now in the mix didn't have a chance to evaluate Gore filtered through the GOP noise machine.  Mr. Gore would have a more significant advantage now than Nixon did in 1968 because he did not go out after his "defeat" (he in fact WON that election) and lose a state wide gubernatorial or Senate campaign like Nixon did.  I find it laughable the "buyer's remorse" alluded to is dismissed so casually.  In fact that "buyer's remorse" hangs out there now like an 800 lb. gorilla in the room.  It is undeniable what a failure Bush has turned out to be.  Mr. Gore would be a formidable opponent now and for those that think otherwise they would do so at their own peril if he decided to run again.  If he does he has my vote.  Otherwise my support would go to Wesley Clark.  Gore/Clark would be a vary sensible and strong ticket.  Looking at the current GOP crop sitting on the bench now it would be difficult to find someone not tainted by the growing stench of corruption in the party for the 2008 contest.

by DuvalDem 2005-10-09 05:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
He could even win twice
Could he EVEN win?  You make it sound like he ONLY won the Presidency.  
  And, Yes, Gore could EVEN win AGAIN... EVEN with this nonsense, EVEN with Nader again, EVEN against Letterman AND Leno.
  So, he could get elected twice, could the Democrats get him office once?  Or is that someone else's job?
by mad donkey 2005-10-09 06:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hillary Clinton's numbers
are better than people realize. Any Democrat would lose to Giuliani or McCain, so I could care less. But she does better in every poll I've ever seen than a guy who just won 252 electoral votes. And whenever people go after her hard, it seems to backfire. Plus she'd have the most brilliant Democrat I've ever known in her camp. You may or may not like Bill Clinton, but he's a certifiable genius.
by zt155 2005-10-09 06:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hillary is smarter than Bill.
Bill has the better speaking/relatability factor, but I am convinced Hillary is smarter than Bill.

NYT profiled her iner circle this spring and they seemed more secretive and loyal than Bushteam, if you can buy that.

Plus, by linking with Borwnback, Gingrich, DeLay and McCain and other scumbag republicans on legislation, she helps innoculate herself against their attacks.  Appearing at press conferences on health care with Newt, going on MTP with McCain...all done brilliantly.

Sure, they'll gear up and try to take her out harder than Kerry or Gore, or any other dem in history in 08....but she has an advantage, I think to the Noise Machine.

After dozens of books, rumors, investigations, etc...how potent do new attacks on her seem?  Not very, but they'll find some that work, but she'll be ready.

She's a warrior at heart.
She just doesn't act like one all the time.

by Sam Loomis 2005-10-09 07:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Gore should listen to THE ROCK
And Know His Role.

Gore serves us much better in his role now.
And he seems happier.
Don't do it Al.  We like you the way you are, right now....

by Sam Loomis 2005-10-09 07:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Gore should listen to THE ROCK
Yeah, let Pro-Wrestlers make your decisions...  Take it from a Minnesotan, bad idea.  
by mad donkey 2005-10-10 12:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary is smarter than Bill.
Oh, I believe she is a warrior alright.  I think her current position on Iraq is that the US should increase the size of the occupation army.  Is it true that she is writing a new kid's book?  "It Takes a Tank Division (To Level a Village)"?

From my perspective she is either a war-mongering neo-con, or an unethical careerist politician who knows better, but thinks she will get more votes if she pretends to be one.  I dont know which is worse.  

I am not Kerry-whoring my vote again.  I will vote for an actual  anti-war candidate in 2008, even if it means voting for Hagel or Nader.  

by Winston Smith 2005-10-09 07:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary is smarter than Bill.
Look, often in order to get elected, Dems must CAMPAIGN like centrists or even conservatives.  Then once they get in they GOVERN far more left than how they campaigned.  This is election strategy 101 and exactly what Hillary will do and get pilloried for.

The rightwing hates her because they fear her for two reasons:  a) that she's smart and smart enough to get elected, and b) they (rightly) fear that, once in office, she'll be very liberal.

Why else would they hate her?  

by jgarcia 2005-10-09 08:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary is smarter than Bill.
So we should vote for Hillary in 08 on the platform that we increase the occupation army, assuming that when she gets elected she will actually procede with disengagement?  Are you fucking kidding me?

I am conservative on many issues, and consider myself a mainstream moderate, but I am willing to dispense with political games to advocate stopping an illegal, immoral and unjust war.  

When the majority of Americans supported the war, I thought dem leaders were just weak and willing to sacrifice their morals to keep their jobs.  Now that a strong majority of Americans want the war to end, I think dem leaders are not only weak, but stupid, too.  

by Winston Smith 2005-10-09 08:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary is smarter than Bill.
Not to split hairs, but that vote was NOT a war resolution.  It was not a declaration of war.  It was a show of American solidarity in an effort to put pressure on Saddam to open up for inspectors.  But I don not wish to rehash all of this.

Having said that, I personally would have voted "no" on the resolution.  The "yes" vote by Dems, as much as I disagree both with the vote and with the war, did indeed go a long way to bolster the Democrats' national security toughness credentials and to shed our soft-on-defense image.  Does this make any sense to you?

This president would have gone into Iraq regardless.  And those "yes" votes, in the long run, helped to change the donkey's national security reputation.  My analysis is purely on a political strategy, not moral, basis.

by jgarcia 2005-10-09 08:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary is smarter than Bill.
I am not talking about the resolution.  I am talking about Hillary's current position on the war.  What is her position on the war?  Does she advocate disengagement or increasing the size of the occupation army?  

The democratic strategy to assume that they will win the anti-war vote will not work with me again.  

Now, in terms of strategy, the situation in Iraq will only get worse.  Where do you think public support for the war will be in 1 or 3 years?  I will guarantee you that 60+% of the electorate will be sick of the carnage and will want out of Iraq.  Isn't it good strategy to advocate a position that you believe in morally, and has overwhelming support among the US population?

by Winston Smith 2005-10-09 08:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary is smarter than Bill.
"Having said that, I personally would have voted "no" on the resolution.  The "yes" vote by Dems, as much as I disagree both with the vote and with the war, did indeed go a long way to bolster the Democrats' national security toughness credentials and to shed our soft-on-defense image."

Do you any numbers to prove your claim here? I don't see that it did, at all. Kerry, after actually facing enemy fire, while facing essentially a draft-dodged, AFTER voting for the war, still got screwed for precisely the national security issue. Nope. I think that your assertions are bold, but are apparently vacuous.

"Does this make any sense to you?

This president would have gone into Iraq regardless.  And those "yes" votes, in the long run, helped to change the donkey's national security reputation.  My analysis is purely on a political strategy, not moral, basis. "

But, an incorrect analysis, in my view.

The right way to bolster one's "natioanal security credentials" is this way:

  • first show that you CAN stand for something, i.e. that you vertebrate
  • make it clear that you are in principle not opposed to the use of force, when necessary
  • make it also clear that going to war in Iraq was actually counter to out national security, for it weakened our capability to counter terrorism where it existed before the war, in fact, it gave the terrorists a new haven in Iraq, it rendered us quite incapable of responding to a sudden and deadly threat of the North Korean kind (or for that matter a China-Taiwan face-off). The main problem with getting this across is RWNM and MSM-whoring, as Dean witnessed, but that is besides this point.
  • make it clear that you fully and vigorously supported the Afghan mission, and would have seen it to its logical conclusion.
  • make it clear that you are willing and capable of assembling significant global alliances to face the threats we and others around the world face, many times more effectively.

Voting for the ill-concieved and ill-gotten war DID nothing to bolster any Democrats' n.s. credentials, and it has in fact made them the party with no backbone and balls to stand up and speak against what was wrong.

Strategically, those 22 odd senators voting for IWR has done more damage to the party than anything one can imagine (CAFTA comes some halfway to that).

Therefore, your analysis does not hold much water, IMHO.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-09 10:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary is smarter than Bill.
Great points, NeoLiberal.
  I think that it should not be overlooked that, upon entering Iraq, not only did we get distracted, but we also made defining our enemy that much more difficult...   For ourselves, and our allies.  We essentially gave our enemy a whole new set of allies.
by mad donkey 2005-10-10 12:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary is smarter than Bill.
  Hillary...  
  Wonder what would happen if Bill started feeling frisky again.  I have a feeling that would really suck...  Even if he wasn't President.  
by mad donkey 2005-10-09 09:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary is smarter than Bill.
Why else would they hate her?

Err, like, err, dunno, 'cause she was Bill Clinton's wife in 1992 and she was more politically visible that the average First Lady?

The Republicans believed the election was stolen in 1992 from Bush Senior. Remember? Ross Perot? Plurality of the vote, etc.? I know it seems like centuries ago. But to boil it down to the essentials, the rightwing was out to delegitimize anything related to a Democratic president. It didn't have much to do the Clintons specifically. They just happened to be the ones in the White House. Hence, they were the target. The Clintons' personalities (boomers, liberal, sort of wonky) probably helped a bit focus the hatred but nearly the same amount of filth would have been leveled again any other Democratic president. The execution would have differed but the substance would have been similar.

So, no, sorry, Republican hatred for Hillary Rodham Clinton is not a testimony to her genius or an appraisal of the threat she represents to the Replutocracy. Republican hate her just because they were trained to do that 24/7 for 8 years and they carry on.

PS: Actually, I find her rather dim and about as politically appealing as a cinder block but that's a personal opinion.
by Fifi 2005-10-10 04:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
huh?
If one votes like a wing nut hawk, one is a wing nut hawk. Do you really believe what they say on tv?
by misscee 2005-10-10 07:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary Clinton's numbers
Giuliani's one big hit has been played. McCain has to flip a quarter to decide who he's going to be in the morning.
by blues 2005-10-09 07:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary Clinton's numbers
Plus McCain will be 72 in 08 and has had melanoma.  His health will be put into question.  He won't be the flavour du jour by when the next election rolls around.
by jgarcia 2005-10-09 08:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The major sliming
The major sliming of Al Gore took place in 1999 and especially 2000.  We heard over and over again with the same screwed up stories that Al Gore was a serial liar.  Right!  Bush, Mr. restore honesty was the liar and the damnm press knew it and still gave that piece of poop a free ride.

That Presidency was stolen from him.  Nixon's was not in 1960 but he went weep weep weep forever and a day.  Gore can and should come off as the wronged man (not the wrong man) and perhaps as a potential giant.

I can't for the life of me see ANY VICTIMIZATION that has occurred to w.  We are his victims!

by David Kowalski 2005-10-09 06:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Need new faces
Liberals are so conservative sometimes. We need to think beyond the same old faces. Gore might or might not win, depending on who his opponent is, but he won't really have any more support than last time. We need someone who can drive a stake into the tired old liberal-conservative divide. Perhaps someone from the west who can put a genuine voice to "live and let live", or someone from anywhere who can balance the competing demands of left and right interest groups in the same way that intelligent members of the general population can: someone who thinks like real people (at least, the real people with IQs of around 100 or above).
by pdt 2005-10-09 07:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Current TV
Al Gore hit the nail on the head with his comments. The rabid response from the Right shows us this. Which makes me wonder...

With a huge part of the media a branch of the Republican Party, and with none of the media similarly part of the Democratic Party, why is Al Gore wasting his time with something like Current TV?

Shouldn't he be focused on creating a liberal counterpart to Fox News?

I think this is Gore's ultimate failure. The ability to understand, to even speak at times, but not to act. You have to do all three, and that's why I don't see Gore as a viable candidate in 2008.

by LiberalFromPA 2005-10-09 07:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Current TV
Posted Wednesday, Jun. 18, 2003 (by TIME dot com):

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,459345,00.html

The former Veep is assisting in an effort to create a liberal alternative to conservative talk radio, and is exploring a cable television venture

by blues 2005-10-09 07:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Outdated
That article is more than 2 years old.

Yes, Al Gore helped create AAR. Good, I applaud him for that. But most people get their news from cable TV these days.

The liberal alternative to Fox News is Current TV as it stand right now -- which is no alternative at all, really. Is a real, 24 hour news channel -- not a channel of student docs -- on its way?

If so, I'll retract my statement.

by LiberalFromPA 2005-10-10 07:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Current TV
"I think this is Gore's ultimate failure."

Bullshit.

Gore has accomplished more in his life than most of us put together; he worked his ass off the Clinton/Gore administration, and barely took the time to come out to share the glory.

"The ability to understand, to even speak at times, but not to act. You have to do all three, and"


During his time as Vice President, Al Gore was mostly a behind the scenes player. However, many experts consider him to be one of the most active and influential Vice Presidents in U.S. history.

(wiki page on Gore: Link)

You should be ashamed to be spinning baseless and false RWNM b.s. like this.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-09 08:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Ashamed? F.U.
Don't accuse me of spinning Rethug bullshit. That remark totally misses the point and shows how utterly lacking you are in your ability to see why we're losing elections.

The problem with you and so many Dems is this attitude that we're not doing anything wrong. We're doing a lot of things wrong, and our failure to use the media effectively is a big one.

I don't give a shit what Al Gore has done if no one outside of the blogosphere or Democratic base knows about it.

by LiberalFromPA 2005-10-10 07:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ashamed? F.U.
If so much was done wrong, then how come Gore won the election?
by blues 2005-10-10 09:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Current TV
I think this is Gore's ultimate failure. The ability to understand, to even speak at times, but not to act.

  Tell that to the people he rescued from New Orleans...  While everyone else was "pointing fingers of blame."

by mad donkey 2005-10-09 09:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
But who knows?
Outside of the blogosphere, who knows Al Gore did this? Are Dems so media un-savvy that they don't know how to use the media to highlight their positives?

I understand the point about not trying to exploit the tragedy. But in the process of being principled, we often lose the p.r. war. How much better would Gore and the Dem party have looked if Al Gore's rescue missions had been well publicized?

Again, this is a failure to act. And by that -- as in my original post -- I was specifically refering to the media and its use. The inability to use the media effectively -- that is a big reason why our numbers are dismal even as the GOP implodes.

by LiberalFromPA 2005-10-10 07:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: But who knows?
Pit the chicken with the fox.
I want someone who can remember the 2000 election was stolen. And who can remember how to run america at a financial surplus

A friend of mine said Gore is much more decisive these days. Lets see him go balls up and take a big risk on something.

Right now its sort of "You won't have nixon around to beat up anymore" isn't it. Stays in the blogosphere and cyberspace, where its safe warm and fuzzy... I say go for it Gore. Get out there and take some action in the party run-up to 2006.  Put an army in there ahead of the general.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-10 10:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: But who knows?
I believe that there has been a certain amount of futility in Gore attempting to go through the mainstream media... They haven't got the friendliest rep. with Gore supporters.  But I know about the rescue and you do...  And I intend to mention it everytime someone says he fails to act.  Word of mouth will dispell the myth (I hope, I am no campaign organizer or political Sci whiz).  As to the perception that his action, while others were inactive, was, in the end, an example of his failure to act...  That's strecthin' the fabric, in my opinion. He acted, saved people's lives, and, though he didn't brag about (breaking another stereotype), people DO know. If you fail to see the value in that...  Guess it ain't tailored right to fit you.
  By the way, I think that your perception of his failure to use the media is a reversal.  I think media has a definitively active role in the "using" game, and it is not just Gore that is having difficulty working with the MS...  The whole Party is having it's trouble's.
by mad donkey 2005-10-10 06:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: But who knows?
All my input has it that the so-called "main-stream-media" is less trusted than ever before. So it might be a high time to cut our losses with these losers. This would probably be a great time for door-to-door advocacy. Which, by the way, is far from easy.

I was born and raised in the state where the border signs read "Entering Connecticut; Dress Nice." It was home base for Ralph Nader, so I got sucked into one of his notorious house-to-house campaigns (for something or other). It was sheer utter hell. Was about five or six of us roaming the lush, endless Connecticut suburbs. Getting told to get our scabrous asses off people's doorsteps 65 times in a row. A lot of people hated Nader for that awful little suburban nightmare. After the 65th disaster, the leader of the troops could plainly see that I was battle fatigued to the point of unconscious alertness. Everything was spinning, and I had to go back to the car to keep from just falling over like a wooden Indian.

I do think we had somewhat of a problem with our aura, which was of a hue that defined us as soft-spoken refugees from some long-lost age of reason. We had goodness and reason and righteousness on our side, but with friends like that...

A lot of people have been saying that if you just sit around and blog, you're just wasting the reader's time with your own hyped-up internal blather. Maybe. But I say, screw the readers. All seriousness aside, not everyone of us will be able to do any of this important, and difficult, direct campaign work. Like me. I am going to be married to this computer for...years probably. Why? (Don't ask...)

For the benefit of those of you who will walk that walk, I can give a few pointers. Well, actually only one pointer. My advice would be to ditch the goodness and reason and righteousness stuff. Get to the wayback machine, and spend at least six hours watching Scott Ritter eating neocons for breakfast, lunch, and supper. Understand, this guy is a genuine, old-fashioned conservative Republican. Who did door-to-door weapons inspection in Iraq. Surrounded by the entire army of one Saddam Hussein. This is the one who really knows door to door. (Was a U.S. marine.) (If he hasn't been some kind of secret agent type, I'll be a monkey's uncle.) Anyway, please do the little six-hour stint. You will not regret a minute of it when you are in the field. Your life may depend on it.

by blues 2005-10-10 10:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Gore
I love Al Gore and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. But I don't think he's ever been comfortable in his own skin as a candidate. And that hurt.

He also seems to me to be the old-fashioned type of honorable person who feels uncomfortable when not being completely honest...and as we all know, politics is about appearance not truth.

He should keep doing what he's doing now, and let someone else - a better politician, never a better person - run.

Who knows? Maybe he'll get a Supreme Court appointment someday.

by Coral 2005-10-09 07:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Gore
...and as we all know, politics is about appearance not truth.

Why should I think you are leveling with me on this one?

by blues 2005-10-09 07:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You're an ill-trained hack
and a lame one, too.

"I love Al Gore and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. "

Here you make an dumb attempt to setup a later attack.

"But I don't think he's ever been comfortable in his own skin as a candidate. And that hurt."

pretty shitty claim. Gore is a bit camera-conscious, and nothing more nothing less, and he seems to have gotten more comofortable with the camera since 2000.

"He also seems to me to be the old-fashioned type of honorable person who feels uncomfortable when not being completely honest...and as we all know, politics is about appearance not truth."

Here is where your little fang thingies emerge :)

so, tell me something, Mr. Hatchet Man Wannabe, exactly how can the same person be both honorable and not honest?

Dude, you need a few more credits before you can graduate from the University of Rove.

"He should keep doing what he's doing now, and let someone else - a better politician, never a better person - run."

But, you should try something else.

"Who knows? Maybe he'll get a Supreme Court appointment someday."

Haha. This is the icing on the cake. FYI, my dear friend, you need a degree in law before you can be a  Judge (and Gore doesn't have one).

Pathetic. Who sent you here?

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-09 07:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're an ill-trained hack
I like that "comfortable in his" skin jive. Typical   regurgitated monkey piss. His posture is sort of military. He photographed a lot of those types in Vietnam.

(It's generally believed that the Constitution allows the Senate to confirm an 18 year old who's never finished the first grade as chief justice, by the way.)

by blues 2005-10-09 07:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're an ill-trained hack
"It's generally believed that the Constitution allows the Senate to confirm an 18 year old who's never finished the first grade as chief justice, by the way."

Wow, does it? But how about a circuit or other federal court judges?

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-09 07:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Gore
"...as we all know, politics is about appearance not truth."  
  Neocon Bible
   Book of Rove1:1.
by mad donkey 2005-10-09 08:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
But oh so true
by Populism2008 2005-10-09 09:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: But oh so true
It can be about either, but it is at its' best when it is both.
by mad donkey 2005-10-09 11:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
3 things in Gore's favor
1) Stature:  we potentially have 8 or 9 candidates who have the potential to be terrific and good Presidents.  But Al Gore, by being VP for 8 years brings a stature and gravitas none of them can.  And after 8 years of Bush's incomptetence, I believe the public is going to want that kind of stature.  There will be a hell of a mess to clean up and Gore has the experience.

2)His speeches the last few years have been forward thinking and right.  The winner of this election will be the one who best understands where we're headed and what's needed and can explain that to the public.  I'm not sure any of the others are even thinking that big yet.   Gore is.

3) and most importantly, a vote for Al Gore will be like a vote for a do-over of the previous 8 years.  By the end of this term the public is going to want to go back and have the previous 8 years over.  Well giving Gore the chance he should have had is the closest thing to that.

by brossnick 2005-10-09 07:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Is our '08 Bench that Bad ?
Al Gore is a great man! A true democrat. I respect the guy & would vote for him anyday.

But is our Presidential bench that lousy that we have to ask Al Gore to SAVE our party?

Gore ran in 2000 on an 8 yr record of peace and prosperity against a man who had the thinnest resume of any presidential candidate. He ran against a man who had difficulty expressing himself in the english language. All he had to do was WIN HIS HOME STATE & we would be having President Al Gore. The state that both him and his father served for MANY years.

Al Gore made history by being the 1st Major Presidential Candidate to LOSE his home state.
If his own people did not vote for him( which even Mondale was able to pull off against Reagan), why should things change this time around.

As much as many  americans Hate Bush today, 2008 is a LONG TIME in politics. We will be up against a Determined, United & Mean Republican party.

Several of our current crop of candidates are from Red States. However, based on state's latest surveys- they  are very capable of winning their state.
If its Bill Richardson, he'll likely to carry NM,  If its Mark Warner- he is likely to carry VA, and if its Evan Bayh- he is likely to carry IN. Why would we even bother with a candidate who CANNOT even carry his own people.

If one cannot even generate enough crossover voters to to vote for him in his state, he will have a tough time penetrating any other Red State.

by labanman 2005-10-09 07:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Is our '08 Bench that Bad ?
Yes, the bench is that bad.
by kfractal 2005-10-09 08:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Is our '08 Bench that Bad ?
Yup, it's that bad.  

I am tired, lonely and emotionally exhausted.  I feel betrayed by the democratic party and its support for the Iraq war, and all I do is rant against Bush.  

I want someone to fight for.  

The person must have the following characteristics, in order of importance:

  1.  Completely, passionately, and publically opposed to the Iraq war
  2.  Not afraid to fight the machine aggressively, instead of always playing defense
  3. Fiscially responsible
  4. Committed to environmental protection
  5. Electable on a national level

Is there anyone else except Gore?  Tell me who it is, I will be their man.
by Winston Smith 2005-10-09 08:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Is our '08 Bench that Bad ?
  1. is sticky, even within the party.
  2. had better be a given.
  3. "oh, my god."  Republicans are the "spend now, tax your children" party.
  4. conservative
  5. stealth nominees are the new vogue?
by kfractal 2005-10-09 08:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Is our '08 Bench that Bad ?
This is just my own list.  I may support a party platform with a different focus.  

  1. non-negotiable, I will vote Green Party in 08 if I have to
  2. also, non-negotiable
  3. true, anyone will be better than Bush, but Gore has impressed me with his fiscial positions (the Lock-box)
  4. same, anyone would be better than Bush, but again, Gore has a reputation as an environmentalist (the Book)
  5. Gore won the popular vote in '00.  And was elected VP twice.  Ah, I remember what winning felt like.  
by Winston Smith 2005-10-09 09:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Uh...Feingold?
Remember him?  He qualifies 110% on all five categories.  Including #5.
by Geotpf 2005-10-09 11:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Uh...Feingold?
You got any links to Feingold's fiery anti-war speeches?
by Winston Smith 2005-10-10 08:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
How about this?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/10/08/feingold_leads_way_on_ir aq_war/
by Geotpf 2005-10-10 08:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Here's a transcript to the speech mentioned above
http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/content/190

He actually gave two speeches while in Los Angeles-this one, and a prior one at the UCLA school of law.  I had the good forture to attend, in person, the previous speech.

by Geotpf 2005-10-10 08:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Shoot, hit post too quick
I just want to add that he was very fired up during that speech.
by Geotpf 2005-10-10 08:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Shoot, hit post too quick
Its not bad, and I could definately support Russ.  He is a little tacit in the criticism of Iraq policy, but better than most dem senators.  Gore's angry denunciations are just more to my liking right now.  
by Winston Smith 2005-10-10 11:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Here's a transcript to the speech
Thanks for the link.
by Winston Smith 2005-10-10 11:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Bullshit, and then some! (oncore)
Yo dude, you're back to unload the same droppings as earlier.

Too bad, I will have to repeat myself.

---------------
---------------

WOW! That's a major attempted hit piece on Gore.

Your non-stop carping on TN.

  1. Gore won the US popular vote by 500K; his loss in TN pales in comparison, and is moot.

  2. McGovern lost his homestate in 1972, and Nixon lost his adopted home state of NY in 1968. Woodrow Wilson lost New Jersey in his 1916 re-election bid but won the election.

  3. Woodrow wilson lost NJ in 1918. Probably 90% Americans today probably think that he Wilson was a great president.

  4. Also, Clinton/Gore won TN in 1996 by only 2.4%, and the country and TN went a lot "Redder" in those 4 years, especially due to Clinton's escapades.

  5. Richardson and Warner failed to deliver their states to Kerry. Why? Due to polarization. Given that, when it comes to pres. races, you have absolutely NO reason to claim that they or Bayh would automatically win their homestates either.

As for your other bilious deliveries:

"As much as we have a sizable group of "Gore loyalist" among party activists, I believe majority of Democrats and independents would rather have a fresh face.."

This is called proselitizing. Don't extrapolate YOUR preferences to everyone else.

"I agree with the other statement. Gore had his chance. He had the money & the track record of 8 years of economic success.

But he BLEW IT!
"

While Gore's campaign wasn't the sharpest, they did overcome a 12%-20% deficit (mostly attributable to the BJ) in early 1999 to actually win the popular vote in Nov. 2000.

Consider these factors that Gore had to overcome:

   1. Clinton's BJ
   2. MSM whoring
   3. Nader's lies that there was no difference b/w Bush and Gore. (Phony) "Environmentalist against Gore", who actually recommended voting for Bush (if not Nader). Naderites for helping Bush win, knowing fully well that there were no runoffs.

"He made his own major decisions that did not work. He chose to ran away from Clinton's record. He chose to distant himself from Clinton. He chose to do a multiple personal makeovers & it didn't work."

He is who he is. His bland personality is a liability in politics. He can't change that."

This is pure unprovoked smearing. But, Yes, Gore is what he is, and he has come to his own, powerfully oratory self since 2000.

"I admire & respect Al Gore a lot. "

That is a bald-faced lie, given everything else you said. Don't try to make yourself look moderated with this attempted ploy of pacification.

"But in these political times of heavy partisanship & personal destruction- YOU ONLY GET ONE CHANCE at being President of the U.S.A."

Gore won the popular vote, and they stole his electoral victory. He is the best package of a visionary, progressive, experienced, and qualified candidate there is, and hence he is the most popular candidate among the netroots.

And I believe that he will run, and win all the way through to the whitehouse in 2009.

I recommend the reader to this dKos diary: Why I hope Gore is our next President, Sun Sep 25th, 2005 at 16:03:49 PDT. link, as well as these Gore speeches (that I also linked elsewhere in this thread):

  • Pre-Iraq war speech (also linked and excerpted elsewhere in this discussion) ("Real" audio here)
  • dKospedia collection of speeches
Thanks.

As for you, bilious hit man, I've got news for you: Gore is the most popular pick for 2008 among the netroots:
"Given these 2008 choices, I would vote for": Edwards 8 %, Clark 24 %, Gore 48 %, Clinton 4%, Feingold 8%, Other 2%, No Freakin' Clue 2 % (7632 Total Votes). Link.

And he will likely remain that way, despite your droppings here and elsewhere.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-09 09:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Bullshit, and then some! (oncore)
I appreciate your efforts to knock down the DINOs and the DLCers who smear Gore with the right-wing image stuff that was so effective in 2000... butcha don't hafta.  He came out of that election not only with his integrity intact but as a winner.  We need you to start hammering on his honesty, integrity and his national base.  We need to coalesce around a leader who has a national base, "is clean as a hound's tooth" and has credibility when the shit hits the fan after all the Bushies get indicted.  The climate is perfect for a "reform" movement as long as we don't let the party circle the M-16's and shoot all the progressives.  It is important to blast Hillary and Clark out of contention RIGHT  NOW...Hillary learning politics and leadership in the senate and Clark as Sec. of Defense is where they belong. Don't waste yer time defending Gore to trolls and DLCers, keep advancin' the ball with emphasis on Gore's experience and ability to unite the anti-wingers.
by LiberalFlamethrower 2005-10-10 04:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Is our '08 Bench that Bad ?
We've got 1 or 2 good choices. Russ Feingold is by far the #1, both progressive, an untypical politician, will defy all conventional wisdom (which will probably have him pull off a victory in the primaries), and is the type of candidate that a communist, a green, a conservative democrat, and some moderate republicans all feel comfortable voting for. Wesley Clark would be good too. Mark Warner would be easily electable too (But his positions aren't something to die for).

But besides that, no. But I still think it's stupid for people to want Gore to run in '08. It's like us asking Dukakis to run for us again... c'mon... Lets ask Mondale while we're at it.

by KainIIIC 2005-10-09 09:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Back with
your Dukakis mantra again, chief? :)

Gore won the popular vote for president in 2000. Dukakis never did.

Still, should Dukakis poll like this in a dKos straw poll, comeback and spin dukakis all you want, and you won't hear a peep from me :)


Given these 2008 choices, I would vote for:

Edwards       646 votes - 8 %
Clark       1887 votes - 24 %
Gore       3693 votes - 48 %
Clinton       367 votes - 4 %
Feingold       669 votes - 8 %
Other       178 votes - 2 %
No Freakin' Clue       194 votes - 2 %

7634 Total Votes

ciao.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-09 10:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Back with
Hey neo whats up with the Bond deal
check this out she is Hotttttttttt

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/gallery.cgi

by progdem223 2005-10-10 05:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Back with
These are stolen Votes from the Bush campaign

Edwards       646 votes - 8 %
    Clark       1887 votes - 24 %
    Gore       3685 votes - 48 %
    Clinton       366 votes - 4 %
    Feingold       666 votes - 8 %
    Other       178 votes - 2 %
  No Freakin' Clue       194 votes - 2 %    7622 Total Votes

by progdem223 2005-10-10 05:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Is our '08 Bench that Bad ?
Did Dukakis or Mondale win the popular vote?
by Winston Smith 2005-10-10 08:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Is our '08 Bench that Bad ?
labanman...
Do you really need anyone to tell you that your argument (that he couldn't win, because he couldn't carry Tenn) is destroyed by the fact that he did?
by mad donkey 2005-10-10 12:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It's 2005- we haven't even won a
house of congress back yet.
by bruh21 2005-10-09 08:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I am for Gore in 2008
I mentioned this in another diary. I was pretty fed up with the Gore-Loserman campaign in 2000 and voted for Nader. But I am ready to vote for Gore if Wes Clark is not nominated. Even if the Gore voters never learned their lessons (judging by their whining after the election about Nader costing them the election when they should have figured out why they didn't earn their votes and why their leaders didn't fight the FL fiasco harder), it does seem Gore has learned some lessons. He seems more at ease and more willing to say what he feels. He doesn't come across as that cautious guy anymore.

But what is essential is the democrats, once they choose him, fight back ferociously when the press tries to smear Gore. An example would be the Internet creation thing. Again and again, democratic guests on talk shows , should be prepared to defend Gore firmly. Howard Dean should come up with talking points and smart rebuttals with the help of a good staff and distribute them to all the democratic leaders so they will be well prepared on talk shows. If they don't do it, it wont matter who is nominated.

As far as Hillary, she will be an improvement over Bush. But I can't stand the woman. If I am going to vote to continue a 2 family rule for nearly 3 decades in the country , she has to be better than "not as bad as bush".

by Pravin 2005-10-09 08:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I am for Gore in 2008
lieberman was not the right guy.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-10 10:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
those numbers make me sad
Gore would have been a great president.
by pacified 2005-10-09 09:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: those numbers make me sad
Same thoughts here.

It just so happens that at deciding majority of Americans are daft beyond all belief.

by kfractal 2005-10-09 09:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Then change them (or just go look at Daily Kos)
  Gore will make a great President...  And exactly when we need one.
   Don't get bamboozled, pacified.  
  Truth is, he is the real deal.  No one, and I mean no one, is as dangerous to the "Bush Legacy" as Al Gore.  One vote, and George Bush II is Americas greatest Fraud.

<url>http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_says_Gore_won_2000_el_0922.html</url>

  They already hit Gore with everything they had, and that was with Nader tossing rocks at him over GW's shoulder, Ta' boot.  He still won.  The Party was caught completely flat-footed by the Rove Machine...  Gore still got the people.
  If I might add, on a pragmatic note, this far away from actually HAVING to be commited...  Supporting a Draft Gore campaign at this point can only increase the choices available to our party in the Primary...  
    I don't think adding Gore's name to a primary ticket could possibly make the Democratic ticket anything but a stronger field.

by mad donkey 2005-10-10 01:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Please allow me to pacify you :)
Hi "pacified", please see these "rebuttals" of the diary post here:
thanks.
by NeoLiberal 2005-10-11 08:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Another crappy &quot;electability&quot; argument.
For now, I'll ignore Chris's reliance on outdated, biased polling. Besides, it's not like the "electability" argument he has employed here was utterly debunked in the election of 2004.

"However, she holds a strong advantage that Gore currently does not: she has consistently remained a national figure."

Why is this an advantage? Gore, in recent years, has completely reinvented himself as a leader and a speaker, a point I will get to later. The fact that his image has changed since 2000 is undeniable, as is the fact that it has also faded from the memory of most Americans. Let's be honest: how many Americans do you think were actually paying attention to Gore before he announced that he wasn't running? I'd wager that it ain't many.

Gore has a chance to emerge from the shadows as the rediscovered leader he has become. Granted, he will have to do it quickly, forcefully and very publicly in the first weeks of his campaign and define himself before anyone else has a chance to. But it is a very real possibility that should be considered.

"It would appear that Gore has not been able to recover while Hillary has"

But this ignores that Hillary has been running a full-time off-season political campaign to improve her image for the better part of the last five years, while Gore simply hasn't. He has, instead, focused on the issues that matter to Democrats. Rather than concentrating on some crass image, he has concentrated on what really matters: the issues. And he's been on the right side every time. His recent transformation from a block of wood to a telegenic, fiery speaker, as evidenced by all his speeches since 2002, has turned him into a much more formidable candidate, not a weaker one.

And that's why Hillary's starting to get scared.

"he might even be sinking further"

There is absolutely no evidence for this claim. If anything, people probably don't care about him nearly as much as they did two years ago.

"any Gore run would be extremely difficult right now"

ANY run would be extremely difficult against the Republican party's media machine. Rather than whine about poll numbers, shouldn't we be picking someone who is a fighter, someone who will defend our values on natioanl TV, like Gore has?

Two of those polls showed Gore with an advantage in favorables of three to four percent. Well guess what? Bush won by two. That's all it takes. And it is always, always possible to change numbers when you have three years before election day to campaign.

I find it fascinating that you would bother to take the time to debunk a possible Gore run when you so staunchly believe that it isn't going to happen. I find it fascinating that Kos shares this same sentiment, despite many rumors and indications much to the contrary. I find it fascinating that both Bowers and Kos have insinutated their support of a potential run by Hillary Clinton for the past several months, even if in simple phrases and sleight of word.

Just for fun: it makes a little part of me bemusingly suspicious. Every time Gore does something important, it is largely ignored, and when he is indeed mentioned, the remark that "he isn't running" in 2008 is predominant. It sounds like a talking point designed to kill growing support for his potential run. Hillary knows that Gore would be her biggest threat, and now that there are rumblings coming from his corner of the party...is it possible she's made a few new friends on the block? That would certainly be a bright move on her part. She is, after all, a master of politics, and this certainly isn't too complex for her--I would actually admire something that shrewd. But perhaps I should reach for the aluminum foil.

I have always enjoyed MyDD and have been a daily reader for a long time now. But I think I'm being truthful when I say that this post is a ridiculous reinforcement of Republican talking points.

by Covin 2005-10-09 10:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: &quot;Electability&quot; argument revisited.
Great comment, Covin.

Both Clinton and Gore will have to overcome the right-wing assaults, but at this point I can't see why a Gore run should be discouraged.  

I want a candidate who was right about the major issues of the last 15 years, not someone who is perceived as "more electable."  The arguments being advanced here for Clinton and against Gore remind me so much of the arguments advanced on behalf of the "electable" John Kerry in 2004.  Let the primaries play out in 2008 and let primary voters vote for the candidate they actually want as President and not the one they are told is most electable. The candidate that emerges from this process is more likely to be the "more electable" one than the one favored in any electability assessment by Chris, Kos or anyone else in 2005.

by Ben Brackley 2005-10-10 05:43AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Another crappy &quot;electability&quot;
I agree. MyDD is my number one place because it doesn't need to talk about being reality based .... it just is (reality based.)

However, this post assumes that listening to polls is a very important piece of the puzzle when choosing a candidate ... which is just pure bs .... and proven bs at that (ie Kerry.)

I forget who said it, but why don't we all just go home.  

We can just let the pollsters and pundits tell us what to do. Oh and then the bloggers can regurgitate what they say for further edification.

Or maybe there is a better way to choose a candidate .... like one who represents the values of the party platform.

It's time to get back to basics. No one is making sure that our voted officials are towing the party line. It's a total free for all and a sure fire way to lose again and again and again.

We just keep showing our opponents how flimsy our values are.

by misscee 2005-10-10 07:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
In today's Rapid Media Reporting
today's rapid media reporting on the internet,cable, print, radio, and regular TV- a national candidate gets a Reputation & an Image that people WILL NOT easily forget. IT is also very easy today to remind people of that in case they forgot

Nixon NEVER had to deal with that. Gore dealt with that & will have to deal with that again if he runs. The whole country will again go thru the " Reinvention of Mr. Al Gore" as a politician. From a Pro-Life Blue Dog, to a Pro-Choice Liberal, to a Proud DLC, to  Proud Populist, to a proud lIberal, etc etc.

In today's world, you only get one realistic shot at the Presidency as the party nominee of a major party). We're talking the Presidency of the U.S. Not some CEO of a Corporation or a President of th National Rotary.

Gore had his shot & he blew it! Just like John Kerry had his & blew it! These are Once in a LIFETIME opportunities that you get.

An individual who wants to be President, no matter how good he is as a politician- HAS LESS ODDS of Becoming a President- compared to a top professional athletes chances of  winning the World series or the Superbowl.

Its that tough!

Al Gore may be a hero among some Liberals in the  Dem  base of the party, BUT that sure changes quicky once you get the opinions of Independent voters, moderates, moderate democrats & moderate republicans. I don't count conservatives who would find any democrat unacceptable.

He COULD HAVE been a Great President. But faith & destiny DID NOT give him that opportunity.

by labanman 2005-10-09 10:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: In today's Rapid Media Reporting
"today's rapid media reporting on the internet,cable, print, radio, and regular TV- a national candidate gets a Reputation & an Image that people WILL NOT easily forget. IT is also very easy today to remind people of that in case they forgot

Nixon NEVER had to deal with that. Gore dealt with that & will have to deal with that again if he runs."

Every Democrats will have to deal with that, PERIOD!

"The whole country will again go thru the " Reinvention of Mr. Al Gore" as a politician. From a Pro-Life Blue Dog, to a Pro-Choice Liberal, to a Proud DLC, to  Proud Populist, to a proud lIberal, etc etc."

In the early days, when Gore was associated with the DLC, the DLC stood for economic centrism and not for war-mongering as it does today.

The reader is referred to this comment for on Gore's progressiveness.

"In today's world, you only get one realistic shot at the Presidency as the party nominee of a major party). We're talking the Presidency of the U.S. Not some CEO of a Corporation or a President of th National Rotary.

Gore had his shot & he blew it! Just like John Kerry had his & blew it! These are Once in a LIFETIME opportunities that you get."

Don't keep repeating yourself, over and over again. People will decide if they want to one, two, or three chances. And, the one chance Gore had, he DID win the popular vote, and had his electorial college victory STOLEN. So, to many people, he DESERVES another shot.

"An individual who wants to be President, no matter how good he is as a politician- HAS LESS ODDS of Becoming a President- compared to a top professional athletes chances of  winning the World series or the Superbowl.

Its that tough!"

Well, any individual that would run without Gore being in field, can also run WITH Gore therein. Should she/he be better than Gore, people will choose her/him over Gore.

Al Gore may be a hero among some Liberals in the  Dem  base of the party, BUT that sure changes quicky once you get the opinions of Independent voters, moderates, moderate democrats & moderate republicans. I don't count conservatives who would find any democrat unacceptable.

I know of many Independent and 3rd party folks that are eager to see Gore run again (many greens regret their 2000 votes against him), or can be easily pursuaded to support him due to his strong environmental record.

"He COULD HAVE been a Great President. But faith & destiny DID NOT give him that opportunity."

I quite honestly predict that Gore will successfully reclaim that lost opportunity in 2009, and become one of our greatest Presidents ever, to share company with Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR.

Amen.


by NeoLiberal 2005-10-09 11:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: In today's Rapid Media Reporting
   You seriously grabbing at some straws, and now you are definitely going directly to tired out Rep. talking points.  Which is the thing.  The Repubs have already fired their amunition at Gore.  
  What are you going to argue next...  BushCo took it easy on him?  They could have run a more damaging campaign?  
  Nah.
 They dark side used everything they could beg borrow or steal...  And they STILL had to fix it in the SC.
  The Dems Vote Gore in 08, and the entire Bush Revolution becomes a national shame...  Close the books on the Neocons...  They'll be dead before anyone listens to them again.
by mad donkey 2005-10-10 01:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Gore is pro-censorship
Or at least people he hangs out with (his wife and his VP pick) are.  I can not support him for that reason alone.
by Geotpf 2005-10-09 11:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
That's a LIE
well, at least an unsubstantiated smear.

Your title is a hit-job, and then you backoff with lame association-based allegation. We know that you will not support him, and that you're for Sen. Feingold.

But, you shouldn't go around putting unsubstantiated hitjobs on Gore. Forget Joementum pick from 2000. Tipper may be inclined for sponsorship, but we are discussing Al Gor here.

If you evidence (voting record, speeches, proposed legislation) to show that Gore's recent stands are for sponsorship, please present it.

Otherwise, you are better of being Pro-Feingold than anti-Gore. (BTW. I like Feingold and am proud of him; Don't lose potential friends of Feingold with your hit jobs on others)

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-10 05:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Ok
Maybe I overstated my comment.  This apparent tendency is why I voted for the Libertarian in 2000 however.
by Geotpf 2005-10-10 08:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Speaking for the Independents
Gore appeals to me. The economy under his reign as VP was first class A-1. He's a harvard Divinity student, that appeals to me as a christian. He's an environmentalist.

The only thing he needs to do is take an all or nothing, hail mary  shot at it. Moveon can get this guy elected whether or not the Democratic party can get him elected. We can dispatch the entire Democratic party with this guy, in fact.

All Gore needs to do is go for it. That simple.
We need something that fits the scale of tragedy  - a punishment that fits the crimes Bush has waged on America.

Where are the Ken Starrs of the Democratic Party?

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-10 03:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Gore was a horrible candidate
I went into the 2000 election very pumped on Gore.  On paper, and in view of his past positions, he was a dream candidate.  Good record.  Experience.  Reputation for integrity.  Much as I detest the job the noise machine did on him, that is no reason to support him again.  Of course if he got the nomination, I would walk over hot coals to vote for him.  
In my opinion, anyone who opines that Gore would be a good candidate in 08 should be locked in a room and forced to watch the three 2000 presidential debates, and the three Al Gores appearing therein.
Note to the incredibly politically nieve person above who intimated that there were "non-negotiable" circumstances under which they would vote "Green" in '08 : I sincerly hope you're enjoying the Bush administration -- your people put him in office!
by nytrialman 2005-10-10 03:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
One more HITJOB TITLE
Let's trace your logic.

"Gore was a horrible candidate

I went into the 2000 election very pumped on Gore.  On paper, and in view of his past positions, he was a dream candidate.  Good record.  Experience.  Reputation for integrity."

BREAK. You went into the 2000 election, then what happened? Did your view change by election time? If so, why don't you mention it and explain why?

"Much as I detest the job the noise machine did on him, that is no reason to support him again."

Why. Please elaborate.

"Of course if he got the nomination, I would walk over hot coals to vote for him."

That sentiment if appreciated, of course.

"In my opinion, anyone who opines that Gore would be a good candidate in 08 should be locked in a room and forced to watch the three 2000 presidential debates, and the three Al Gores appearing therein."

On the debates:

  1. Most people came away thinking that Gore won on substance.
  2. His style points, especially that grunting in the 1st debate was not good. But it was blown way out of proportion, and the MSM turned the initial opinion that Gore won, into a Gore loss within 2-3 days.  Quite a mastery of the MSM whores by Carl Rove, but you shouldn't use this to hit a democrat.
  3. I also concede that he had another bad style point or two in the next two debates, and stuff like "lockbox" was spun badly into a ridiculous joke, and his walking up to Chimpy was not great.

  4. But all in all, style+substance together it was a 6/4 Gore over Bush (IMO), but the MSM turned it into 8/2 Bush over Gore.

Yes, I would sit in a room and watch all those debates again. In fact, I will, at some point, if Gore steps in to the 2008 race.

Yes, Gore should have scored better style points in them, but he wasn't all that bad.

BTW, why all this fuss about debates? Should Gore run, he will have to debate his primary opponents again, and the people will judge for themselves if his debating skills are adequate for them then. There is no need for anyone to handicap him on a mostly MSM-respun debate performance.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-10 05:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: One more HITJOB TITLE
I appreciate the points you have raised in response to my comment.  By election day 2000, I was discouraged by Gore, the candidate, not by the substance of his positions.  I not only voted for him but campaigned on his behalf.  I was also not 100% crazy about Kerry, the candiate, but flew down to Florida at my own expense and worked several long days on the ill fated "voter protection" project (I say "ill fated" because, in hindsight, if the thousands of "voter protection" workers were involved in GOTV instead Kerry might have won Florida.  Hindsight is always 20-20).   Back to Gore, I am not saying that he didn't win in terms of the points he made and, in fact, I imagine if you read the written version of the debate dialog he undoubtedly cleaned Bush's clock (why wouldn't he....Bush is a moron).  The point I was alluding to, obviously not with enough clarity, is that Gore exhibited three separate personalities in the three debates.  There were three Al Gores displayed for the viewing public.  This played right into the so-called "character issue" and enabled a man of no talent and less intellect to be made President by the Repugs on the Supreme Court.  I think Gore is a man of great potential, but the poor job he did as a candidate gives me much fear and trepidation as we consider a new Gore candidacy.
by nytrialman 2005-10-10 05:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Gore was a horrible candidate
I am going to vote for an anti-war candidate in 2008.  NON-NEGOTIABLE.  Got a problem with that?  I am a one-issue voter now.  I am not Kerry-whoring my vote again, supporting someone who doesnt have the strength to publically oppose the war.  There is now massive public support for disengagement.  Why are the democrats too scared to stand up against the war?

I am not a democratic party loyalist.  I left the democratic party recently, and wont re-register as a democrat until they start advocating things I care about.  

Looking back on the 2000 campaign, I think you're right, Bush and his one-trick pony mantra (I believe in the people, not the government) was a far more capable and engaging campaigner than Gore.

And your tone is a little snotty.. Fuck you

by Winston Smith 2005-10-10 08:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: One-issue stupidity
Yes Winston, I have a big problem with your "one issue voter" mentality.  I am opposed to the War on Iraq and marched in Washington a couple of weeks ago to make the point.  But although it's critical, Iraq is not the only issue.  Do you care about the Supreme Court?  Global warming?  Handouts to the rich and gutting social programs?  Nadar gave us the war in Iraq, and, when Roe vs. Wade is overturned by a new Supreme Court reactionary majority I suggest a new term for the back alley coat hanger abortions, which could become reality: "getting Nadarized".  Grow up!
by nytrialman 2005-10-10 10:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: One-issue stupidity
Nader voters put Bush in the White House?  I thought Bush voters did that.  Like i said, I voted for Kerry in 2004.  It was a mistake, a naive political compromise.  I care about other issues, but at this point I will only support a candidate that is decisively against the war, unlike Kerry was.  

A good majority of the US population believes that the war was a mistake and favors disengagement.  Democrats are not willing to make this a political issue partly out of their arrogance that they will receive the anti-war vote by default.  This is not acceptable to me.  At this point, I must assume those politicians who advocate following Bush's current plan actually support it.  

by Winston Smith 2005-10-10 01:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
If we talk about
the Plame case now the way we should have talked about it in 2004 the news media will simply not have the power to slime.
by Alice Marshall 2005-10-10 06:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Gore's bonefides
I am VERY happy to see this discussion taking place.  Lets get one thing perfectly clear, Al Gore is THE only candidate positioned to take advantage of the current dissolution of the neofascist Republican "movement" and move the Democratic party away from the DLC and "Clintonism".  The key to doing this is NOT (initially) to raise his favorables in the general population but to  energize him with the Democratic activists.  This is where the blogosphere comes in...remember to take the country back will first require the Democratic party to cleanse itself of the DLC and circumscribe the Clinton faction.  Simultaneously, the party must then expand itself as a "big tent" to attract disillusioned Repugs through the use of the anti-Iraq war movement.  Gore is perfectly positioned to lead a BROAD anti-war movement that includes ALL folks from the squimish "we can't afford to lose Clintonites" to the genetically disposed anti-war folks.  Get some poll numbers from selected DEMOCTRAT constituencies right now ...(I'm sure they exist in the Gore operation), I theink you'll be surprised at Gores level of support.

GORE AND DEAN IN 008

by LiberalFlamethrower 2005-10-10 06:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
They don't even try to hide it
We know the time: Wednesday. We know the place: Grover Norquist's office. Here I sit on the fringes of the loony left three thousand miles and more from the Beltway and I know for a fact that they congregate weekly to discuss a coordinated message. Which they then propogate. They invited USA to sit in early in June 2001
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-06-01-grover.htm.
The title of the article gives it away "Norquist's power high, profile low". And the way to keep that profile low is to invite a national newspaper to sit in?

We are not talking Order of the Illuminati here. DeLay et al did not exactly keep the 'K Street Project' secret, there never was a velvet glove around that steel hammer. The Right was openly flexing its muscles and declaring "permanent majority baby!". They were riding high and never thought the moment of accountability would ever come. They could title books about liberals "Treason" and laugh and laugh.

Well they are laughing out of the other side of their mouths today. We have the dirt, or much of it, we know where the money is coming from (Scaife/Olin/Bradley) we know where it is going to (Armstrong/Halliburton) and a lot of people are waking up to find out that their patriotism has been used in the basest ways to fleece their pockets so as to line the pockets of the wealthy. And given that comes with the additional cost of their kids bleeding and dying in Iraq they are getting justifiably testy.

by Bruce Webb 2005-10-10 07:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It's Too Late
Look, I wish Al Gore had been president these past few years, and I think he would have been a great one.

But nominating him in 2008 presents a major problem: Elections are almost inevitably about the future, not the past.  Nominating Gore, whatever his weaknesses or strengths, will be billed as a quest to avenge the 2000 election, and that's not where we want to be.  

by danielj 2005-10-10 09:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: It's Too Late
Hi Daniel,

"But nominating him in 2008 presents a major problem: Elections are almost inevitably about the future, not the past.  Nominating Gore, whatever his weaknesses or strengths, will be billed as a quest to avenge the 2000 election, and that's not where we want to be.   "

any billing of why he would run will be done by Gore, and if he wanted to make it about the 2000 election, he would have done so in 2004, when the nomination was his for the taking. If you noticed the comments, very few, if any, of Gore-supporters are seeking to make the 2000 election the platform for a 2008 run.

IMO, if Gore chooses to run, then he will run on a powerful progressive platform that one can infer from his many a great speech of the last 2-3 years.

In short, there is not even an iota of chance that Gore would make this a revenge mission, even if some of the activists may be partially motivated by it.

thanks for your comment.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-10 07:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Some are Moving Forward, Others Keep Revisiting
Some of  the Gore Loyalist keep repeating the 2000 elections all over again. It's TIME to LET GO and MOVE ON!

He could NOT beat a one term Texas Governor who murdered the English language. He could NOT even get the trust of his home state of TN.

Way TOO MUCH Baggage! Way Too Much History!

Sorry but the Truth Hurts!

by labanman 2005-10-10 09:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Dear banalman,
"Some of  the Gore Loyalist keep repeating the 2000 elections all over again. It's TIME to LET GO and MOVE ON!"

We tend to repeat only when people level charges that make it necessary to evoke that election.

"He could NOT beat a one term Texas Governor who murdered the English language. He could NOT even get the trust of his home state of TN.

Way TOO MUCH Baggage! Way Too Much History!

Sorry but the Truth Hurts! "

Look, you are simply repeating yourself relentlessly. If you don't like him, please don't vote for him in the primaries. Period.

To the reader: here are this person's previous attacks on Gore, and the responses thereof:

so banalman, you should stop repeating, recycling, and regurgitating the same spins a mulititude of times.

try to make a postive campaign for your candidate (is it Clark, by any chance?), instead of launching a barrage of inane negative attacks on Gore or other candidates.

Thanks.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-10 07:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Bowers helps drive up unfavorables

Certainly part of the unfavorable rating is dependent on Democrats that have an unfavorable view of him, and I'd bet that in a poll Bowers would be counted as one of them. He continues to damn Gore with faint praise (at best) and his omission of Gore from his "straw poll" is another way of subtly excluding Gore from the dialog on presidential contenders. His only Gore diaries provide an opportunity to tell us what's wrong with him (can Gore's "flaws" be fixed?), or to tell us why rumors that Gore may be considering a run are not credible (equivalent rumors for anyone else are enough to get them in the straw poll). Kos is doing the same thing. Obviously, these are some very influential people in the netroots that are going to do what they can to suppress a Gore candidacy.

This crap would make the GOP noise machine proud.

by TrainWreck 2005-10-10 10:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re:&quot; Some are moving forward....&quot;
Please...Al Gore DID beat a one term governor of a right wing state....and that waz with the entire MSM and corporate televsion machine geared up against him.  It has always facinated me that most DINOs and DLC folks forget that Gore beat the chimp by HALF A MILLION votes straight up...not only is he electable, he will no longer have the DLC advisors on board who pushed Joe L. and distance from the Big Dog.  Get real...we have the strongest, most experienced and most nationally credible candidate right now...who better to lead an anti-fascist government of national reconcilliation.

GORE AND DEAN IN 2008  

by LiberalFlamethrower 2005-10-10 11:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: &quot;It's too late...&quot;
These next two elections and the political atmosphere for the next 3 years are going to be all about "history" and the elections of the past as well as where do we go...This next 3 years is the last battle of the Civil War and Reconstruction.  The scandals,of  which we've only seen the beginning, are going to force EVERYONE to reassess the past and finally bury either the ideology of the Confederacy (neoconcervatism today) or the federalist-republic liberalism that we take for granted.  Make no mistake, the only way we get our country back is with a candidacy of national reconcilliation in front of a "big tent" Democratic Party...the only way we lose is if we let those who have profited from the status quo in the Dem. Party (the DLC and the Schrums and Bidens) to define our party and our goals.  Al Gore already has the base and the credibilty that NO one in either party, other than the male Clinton, has nationally.
by LiberalFlamethrower 2005-10-10 11:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Gore
I'm sorry guys, but Gore, Daley and Lieberman gave Florida away because they were gutless, insider hacks. Gore may have finally woken up and smelled the coffee he'd allowed to brewed around him in his many years inside the Beltway, but his time is past. And he didn't just lose his time, he squandered it.
by thelonius 2005-10-11 10:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Gore Won the 2000 election
and so says, Pres. Jimmy Carter:

There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."

And, what do you mean "gave Florida away". Post-election, Gore fought for 35 days to secure what was apparently his victory. It was the "belyway boys" that started discouraging him when they felt the heat of the polls. Not Gore. He fought until the last day, and bowed out (gracefully, I might add) when no further recourse was left for him to take after the SC ruling.

As for the beltway boys in general, they never really liked Gore in the first place. They had no choice since Gore was Clinton's VP. Gore's DLC connections were long before estranged. IMO, currently Gore has a more "neuvo riche" intnernet/IT variety millionnaires' backing and a resounding netroots' support (please check these dKos poll results that I have posted here).

Whether you, Chris Bowers or Kos like it or not, Gore will be a significant force to reckon with for 2008, and almost certainly the top alternative to Hillary for the nomination, once things get started and he gets some nationwide airtime of his own.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-11 12:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
the noise macine IS the media
  I don't get the fact that there are so many people who seem to agree that the mainstream media is screwing United States citizens...  One would think, if people felt that way, they would want a guy who is going AFTER that media...
  I think that's Gore.  I think he will fight against crap media, as he is already, because he will be forced to. He won't just go have a meeting with Ruppert, and get everything on television into "High-heels."
   
by mad donkey 2005-10-14 11:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You left out the facts
   Sorry Chris but you left out the facts from your article, "Can Gore even win again". For the record, Al Gore was slimed by the mainsteam media, not the republican spin machine. This war against Al Gore in 2000 and since was led by the New York Times and the Washington Post. I would suggest that you review the archieves at www.dailyowler.com that documents this. The poll numbers you then used to attack Al Gore are 3 years old and more and were taken at the height of the mainstream media's attacks. Your polling more importantly fails to reflect the clear change in the majority of peoples views since your polling was done. Iraq is now viewed as a disaster and a war that never should have been fought by a solid and growing majority of people. Hurricane Katrina has helped to expose Bush the thief for the fraud that he really is. Furthermore, Bush the thief has turned out to be the disaster that in 2000 Al Gore correctly warned he would be. Hurricane Katrina has put global warming in the forefront and that's Al Gore's signature issue. Al Gore is the only democrat at the national level who has challenged Bush the thief at every turn and correcly pointed out how disasterous his policies are for the country while the rest of the democrats cowed in fear in their cushy ivory Washington towers. Hilary is now saddled with the albatross called the Iraq disaster along with her failure to point out how disasterous Bush the thief has been for our country. Her vote in support of the Iraq war which has now been proven to have been started based on total lies will go down as her worst vote. Bush the thief is now sinking faster than quick sand. All of this is playing directly into Al Gores hands. Al Gore will be seen as the person who got it right about Bush the thief and the dangers that our country is facing. None of these well documented facts was in your article. I would suggest that you include the up to date, actual facts when you write about Al Gore instead of twisting outdated polls into your own slime of Al Gore. Many grassroots democrats remain outraged by Bush's theft of the 2000 election and by the failure of the democrats to fight back against Bush the thief. That outrage led to Howard Dean being elected chair of the DNC. The grassroots wants a Presidential candidate who will fight back. Al Gore is the only person who can meet that test.
by Gore 2008 2005-10-14 07:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Bad

It is a pity really that this happened to Gore since I think he would do a great job. Unfortunately I think it will be very difficult for him to recover.

by Linda B 2008-02-18 12:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Could Gore Even Win Again?

I like Gore fairly much and think he is a fairly good alternative but I think it will be difficult for him to ever recover.

Julie, Programmer working on the Hair Health Online Pharmacies project.

by Julie W 2008-02-25 07:24AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads