How would a Gore 2008 campaign be different than the Gore 2000 campaign?

[Ignacio Upton]

I would like to so Gore run, but I am still concerned that the Al Gore of 2002-present revert back to the Al Gore of 2000. The one who worse earth tone suits because his advisors told him to do so. The one who did not do enough to respond to the Right-Wing Noise Machine (but to be fair, not many Democrats with the exception of Bill Clinton have sucessfully overcome them) The Al Gore who chose Lieberman in order to blunt a MSM talking point that the country had a case of "Clinton fatigue" over Monica and other "scandals" which was basically a Frank Luntz meme that the public began to buy into and is exaggerated to a large extent (hypothetical polls between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush showed Clinton winning!)

If Gore runs, what he needs to do is:

1. Do NOT rehire Donna Brazile or any other top officials from your 2000 campaign! They are part of the reason why the election was so close. Hire activists who have been in the trenches and are in tune with the grassroots and the media

2. Have a web-savvy campaign. This will surely happen, given he "invented the internet" and has been preaching the uses of it for years. I can see Al Gore having a wired campaign that will be triple the size of Dean's venture.

3. Use your instincts. He needs to trust himself when he says something. In 2000 a meme repeated against him was that he would "say and do anything to get elected" and the performances in next two debates in reaction to an SNL video did not help put this myth to rest. Do not worry about what swing voters want, they will flock to you if they see someone who is strong and unafraid to say what he thinks (this is one of the reasons why some swing voters flocked to Bush over Kerry, who appeared indicisive whereas Bush appeared certain, even if it was for the wrong reasons.)

4. Be more media-savvy. These people chewed you up and spit you out in 2000. I am happy now Gore knows how they work in reading his speeches. But understanding the media through reading how it works is one thing. But putting into practice a plan to beat them in the framing war is another

[koopie57]

1. no Lieberman

[Jamastiene]

40. That would be a great start.

I love Gore, but Lieberman is just too conservative.

[mattclearing]

46. I don't think that will be an issue.

I think Gore is pretty ashamed of Joementum these days.

[bowens43]

2. He would be running against

a more intelligent and more capable candidate. Keep in mind, he couldn't beat what is possibly the stupidest man ever to run for the office. Do you really want to risk Gore going up against someone whose IQ is greater then his waist size?

[Ignacio Upton]

7. He won the popular vote and Florida!

The Electoral Vote in Florida was stolen from him. However, he should have run a better campaign. With the economy the way it was, he should have won by at least 3-5% nationally (I use this low margain because the existing base of Clinton-haters out there were prepared to punish Gore no matter what, but Bush should not have been leading those national polls and Gore should have won by more in the popular vote).

[Patchuli]

21. Had more to do with cheatin'

than beatin'! Bush did not beat Gore. Bush didn't beat Kerry either. And we will never beat cheaters so we best make sure they can't do it again.

[drummo]

42. IQ is a disadvantage in US presidential politics nowadays.

Kerry couldn't beat Bush. Gore could.
But Bush got as many vote as he got because there are millions of voters in America who are proud to be stupid.

To hell with them. We should go after those who still value intelect.

[longship]

49. Umm. I don't think this is correct.

The 2000 campaign had absolutely little to do with intelligence. Portraying it as such completely misses the mark. If it was about intelligence, even by your own argument, Gore would have won easily.

Gore didn't win handily because he let the Repugs and the media beat up on him. He was a wimp about it and he lost enough votes to make the Florida debacle possible.

We have every reason to believe that Gore would run a completely different campaign in 2008. We have seen a more focussed Al Gore develop in the past five years. He has much more charisma, he speaks better, with the passion of... well, to be frank, with the passion of a leader. If he were to carry that into a 2008 campaign, there would be no stopping him.

This country is begging and aching for somebody to take the reins of government and lead. It seems such a long time since we've had somebody like that in the White House.

In the last five years Al Gore has shown us that he may very well be the one.

[drummo]

52. No. The Democrats let the Reps beat up on Gore

The candidates have to stay about the fray.
If the candidate tries to attack the media coverage it comes through as whining.
It is the job of their parties to counter the attacks.
That's what Bush's people did for him.
But nobody did it for Gore because quite frankly the Dem establishment was not particularly eager to keep the White House.
The Reps were absolutely crazy to get back in power and the Dems were sleeping. Gore had to fight virtually alone.

You cannot fight the echo chamber alone. It's simply too big. You cannot pay attention to every TV and radio program, every paper and magazin and keep track of boards and blogs on the Net.
Gore never had a sophisticated war room because noone was willing or capable to do it for him.

[Uncle Joe]

81. I agree drummo, in 2008 we will have to hold the corpwhorate owned

MSM accountable for the slanders that are sure to follow and it is imperative that we do this as a united party. I also believe the internet will have much more influence than it did in 2000.

[LSK]

57. he ran against Karl Rove n/t

[Rowdyboy]

3. Absolutely do not rehire Donna Brazile, don't pick Joementum for vp

and nend fences with Bill Clinton.

[drummo]

50. No. Gore does not own anything to Bill Clinton. Clinton owes an

appology to Gore for screwing up Gore's political carrier with his stupid romace.

[Fescue4u]

4. One would win by a slim margin, the other would lose by a large one

Unfortunatly Gore is damaged goods. His was the strongest and had the best chance to win in 2000.

[melody]

9. nonsense

Gore won the first time. He has (in the time he's been away) done a lot of good for the world. AND he was anti-Iraq war and pro-environment when many other Democrats were running scared.

I think he's the perfect candidate for 2008.

[Fescue4u]

35. I know he did

(win the first time).

But it was by a slim margin. The media has tore this fine man to shreds since then.

As good as he is, he's not electible.

Thats just my opinion of his chances in 2008 (which is seperate and apart from him his platform and what he has done for us)

[drummo]

58. It was not that slim.

In Florida about 110,000 overvotes were cast.
80% of those ballots had a vote for Gore and someone else. This was a result of voter stupidity + a stupid Florida law in 1998 which made is much easier for smaller party candidates to get on the ballot. But the law did not change the election technologies. So you had the same ballot papers and 11 name + the write in. Hence the butterfly ballot and the canterpillar ballot.
You cannot blame Gore for that. It had nothing to do with his campaign.
Plus there was the felon-purge list which eliminated 1000s of non-felons from the voter lists. Most of them were African-Americans, likely Gore voters.

If every voter who wanted to vote had been allowed to vote and if their votes had been counted Gore would have won Florida by tens of thousands of votes.

Then he would have won almost 51,000,000 votes nationwide and 292 electoral votes. And based on the number of voters he convinvinced to get out and vote for him that should have been the certified result.
That wouldn't have been so slim.
Given that he started the campaign with 20 points behind Bush it was
an incredible campaign.

[Ignacio Upton]

11. How is he "damaged goods"

Chris Matthews and Howard Kurtz will tell the public that, but for someone who predicted the fiscal crisis we are in, Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, and opposed the War in Iraq when most people were for it, is just bullshit to say he is not a strong candidate in the next election

[Fescue4u]

36. The media made him out to be a "sore loser"

then they made him out to be a kook afterwards (while he was taking a break from public life).

He BARELY just barely won in 2000. He has no chance in 2008.

[Ignacio Upton]

39. Yeah that was the MSM

But the public needs to know more about the 2000 election theft. Association with the Dean scream will be a problem, but why should that stop him?
Gore will do fine as a candidate in 2008.

[Uncle Joe]

84. I believe the corpwhorate owned MSM has lost much credibility with

the American People since 2000. As the curtain continues to be pulled back exposing the corrupt incompetence of the Bush administration, it also lays bare the corrupt incompetent corpwhorate owned MSM that enabled him to power in the first place while trashing our best and brightest.

[billbuckhead]

27. The real reason Fescue doesn't like Al Gore is that he is anti-NRA

Here's what damaged goods really looks like.


"When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, you want to have your friends around, preferably armed. So I feel really good."

Tom DeLay, KeynoteSpeaker, Annual Convention of the National Rifle Association, Houston, April 16, 2005.
<http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010388.html>

[Fescue4u]

34. Bill, This is not about Gun Control

I know you like to discuss it, and heck, I like to discuss it to, but its really not germane to this discussion.

I never said I don't like Al Gore. I LIKE Al Gore.

But I don't think he's electible. The media has done to much damage to him.

(But I'll throw you a bone...if Al Gore had embraced the second amendment, he would have won Tennesee, would be president now, and florida would be a footnote in history, not a turning point)

[drummo]

60. Noone would have believed him in TN if all of a sudden

he had portrayed himself as anti-gun control. It would have been span by the press just like the Elian case.
And you still have to deal with the abortion issue which is also very strong in TN

BTW his gun-contol proposal did not violate the Second Amendment.
That was NRA spin because the NRA wants nothing but to sell more and still more guns conviniently to everyone regardless of criminal record or age or mental condition. No thanks. This is not Somalia.

[Fescue4u]

66. Thats proably true.

Which is al the more reasons why he should never have fought against our right to own arms. If he had been a champion of the 2nd amendment fromthe beginning, he wouldnt have to worry about changing positions and looking disengenous.

He did have the strength to stick with his views on the right to bear arms, and I credit him for that, although it did cost him, the nation, and the world more than we will ever know.


As for your statement about his gun control proposal and the NRA strawman, I disagree, but thats neither here nor there.

I have my opinion about gun control, you have your opinion about gun control....And the voters of Tennesee had/have their opinion about it...and the rest is history.

As I said above, Florida would be a footnote, rather than a turning point in history.

[drummo]

71. That's NRA spin, as I said.

Which is al the more reasons why he should never have fought against our right to own arms.

He never did that.
Nothing in the second amendment prohibits the passage of laws which make it more difficult for individuals to get guns. Nothing. In fact the SA says nothing about the process that has to be followed before someone gets a gun. You can buy a gun. Gore never said you can't.
But you have to go through a procedure first so if you are complete nutcase you will not be able to run around in my neighborhood with an AK-47.


If he had been a champion of the 2nd amendment fromthe beginning, he wouldnt have to worry about changing positions and looking disengenous.

In your grotesque world "being a champion of the 2nd amendment" means a total lack of any gun-control meassure regardless whether it contradicts the language of the SA or not.
Again: we are not Somalia. Certain people with a certain background SHOULD NOT have guns. Period.


He did have the strength to stick with his views on the right to bear arms, and I credit him for that, although it did cost him, the nation, and the world more than we will ever know.

Wrong. More people favored Gore's position on the gun issue than Bush's pro-NRA insanity.
There were many other issues which alienated the rednecks from Gore. Not the least the fact that he was Clinton's veep. The gun issue was not decissive in 2000. Character was.

As for your statement about his gun control proposal and the NRA strawman, I disagree, but thats neither here nor there.

Strawman? I like when people pretend that they are better than they actually are.
The NRA is full of nuts. Gunnuts. OK? That's the true. They want to sell as many weapons as possible for anyone, criminal or not under-18 or not, as possible. That's their agenda. And anyone who stands in the way is labelled as anti-Second Amendment. A very boring tactic.

And the voters of Tennesee had/have their opinion about it...and the rest is history.

Prove that Gore would have won TN had he been pro-NRA.
Gore was pro-choice. Pro-separation church and state. Pro-science (and he believes in the evolution!)
He was perceived in TN as a Washington insider how doesn't understand who "average folks" live. And he was the impeached Clinton's veep.
Don't tell me that TN voters didn't think about anything else than guns.
Or are they really that supid?
If so no wonder they voted for Bush.

As I said above, Florida would be a footnote, rather than a turning point in history.

Clinton was for gun control in 1996. The NRA hated him in 1996. They endorsed Dole. He won TN in 1996.
How could that happen if your theory is true?

[Fescue4u]

73. IT doesnt matter how you and I feel about it

But it did matter how the voters of Tennesee felt.

We know how they voted.

And now the world lives with the result.

btw, you make ALOT, ALOT of assumptions about my position. Im not sure where you got them, but most are offbase. But as I said, it doesnt matter. I voted for Gore and I suspect that you did to. Unfortunately Tennesee didnt, Gore lost the presidency. Personally, I would really like to have had those gun owners in Tennesee on our side. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference. Maybe it would.


Just one last point. DO you REALLY want to use 1996 as proof the popularity of gun control? Thats fine if you do, but I remember the massive losses that Democrats suffered, and I remember Bill Clinton attributing those losses to the 1994 gun bans.

[drummo]

82. What assumptions are you talking about?

You said Gore was against the SA. He was not.

The SA says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

OK you can keep and bear your gun.
But before you get there you have to show that you don't have a criminal record. Your rights are not violated in anyway if you are not a criminal. If you are I say who cares about your gun rights? You already violated other people's rights and you didn't care about them, either. Why should I or anyone else?
The SA nowhere says that guns should not be registered.
You can keep and bear a registered gun.
And so on.
Nothing in Gore's gun-control proposal violated the language of the SA. But sure it stood in the way of the NRA's ambition to sell as many guns as possible for everyone who wants them.

Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference. Maybe it would.

That's a whole lot different from what you said earlier.
You stated categorically that Gore would have won Tennessee had he been pro-gun (whatever that means)

Of course voters in TN just like anywhere else care about more than just their guns.

And every single gunowner would still have their guns if Gore was in the White House -- except criminals who deserve what they get. (Tough on crime is not popular in TN?) They were paranoid and bought the RW propaganda that "Gore would take away your guns" but voters are usually ignorant, misinformed and paranoid. (Just check out how they behaved after 9/11)


Thats fine if you do, but I remember the massive losses that Democrats suffered, and I remember Bill Clinton attributing those losses to the 1994 gun bans.

1.You were talking about a presidential election not congressional races. Two different ballgames.

2.Clinton said many things which distort the political reality. Usually he oversimplifies and his post-election analyses are off the mark.
A combination of decisions, along with Clinton's inability to effectively communicate why he did what he did, led to the 1994 Rep revolution. Gays in the military, tax increase, health care debacle, Somalia and a stagnant economy (it didn't pick up until after 1994) These were the biggest topics. Clinton, as usually he does, blamed something that cannot be automatically linked to him personally.
It's his regular tactic.
Recently, for example, said that Bush won because of his brilliant slogan, I'm a compassionate conservative. He did not mention another "brilliant" slogan that the Bush camp used even more often "I will restore honor and dignity to the White House". Guess why?

3.You were only talking about Tennessee. That's not the country as a whole. Gore was hurt by very personal matters in TN, in addition to his pro-choice pro-science pro-gun-control position and association to Clinton. There was a very active local media campaign against Gore with stories which were not shown in the national media but had a big impact in TN. Such as that Gore was linked to the Hillbilly Maffia.
The gun issue alone wouldn't have been enough to turn TN into a state red. As usual it was a combination factors. Including the fact that TN had a Rep governor and two Rep senators in 2000, just like Utah or Arizona.

4.If Clinton thought that Dems lost the Congress just because the gunnuts hated the ban why didn't he lose TN in 1996, two years after the Rep revolution? The gunnuts forgot the whole stuff or what? And then they started to remember again in 2000? This just doesn't add up.

And if the gun issue was so important why did Gore win PA and MI, two states where there are even more gun owners than in TN?

[Fescue4u]

102. We can debate the bill of rights

And we can throw out those NRA myths and facts (like guns for everyone under 18 lol).

We can debate the meaning the 2nd amendment all day.

In southern states, the debate is settled and has been for 200 years.

Sure it'll sell in a handful of places like California, NJ, NY etc. But most places else, its a stone around our neck. And in places like Michigan, Penn, and Ohio, its a balancing act.

But overall, Gun control is a loser of national elections.

(if you want to discuss the finer details of this, lets take this to the guns forum please)

[drummo]

43. If 2000 was his best chance what would have been the worst chance?

He never had the chance to take what was rightfully his.

[Fescue4u]

64. Anytime after 2000

I agree with your statement that he didnt get the chance to take what was ihs.

[drummo]

77. I asked what 'would have been' not what 'will be' his worst chance

Anytime after 2000 includes the future, about which obviously neither you nor I have facts

[Fescue4u]

79. Ok I'll answer

His worst chance was when he was first born.

Not much chance of getting elected as an infant. There that answers your burning question. Whats your point?



Im not focused on when his worst chance is/was. I just made a point that his BEST chance was 2000, when he was a sitting VP.

Few VPs get elected to be president while seated as a VP. Even far fewer lose an election, and then later make a comeback and win the presidency. IN fact I cant think of a single one in history (although if I google it, I suspect there might be one or two in the last 200 years)

[drummo]

85. I thought you said

his best chance was 2000 because you believe the circumstances were good for him to win.
But 2000 was a horrible time for Gore to run.

-he was a sitting veep after 8 years of Dem rule
sitting veeps are treated worse than senators because they are perceived as second bananas and dirty insiders at the same time,
they get the blame but don't get the credit
That's why Dukakis started the campaign leading Bush Sr, the veep of a popular president, by double-digit. Later Bush Sr managed to portray Dukakis as a far-left extremists (Willie Horton) and that's the only reason why he won

-he was running as the veep of a president, who was perceived as immoral and a liar

-he was running when the economy started down, in March 2000

-he got the most dishonest and stupid press coverage in prez election history, partly because the press was fed up with the Clinton era and wanted to end it, they wanted something new

-he was outspent by Bush 2-1

So if this was his best chance what would have been his wortst chance?
If he had run as the husband of a convicted murderer?

I just made a point that his BEST chance was 2000, when he was a sitting VP.

That's precisely one reason why it was not his best chance. Sitting veeps always start with a disadvatange. Always. No exception in 20th century history.
Nixon had a much better chance as a former veep than as a sitting one
partly because there was a major crisis: Vietnam.
If Iraq is still a mess in 2008 the similarities between Nixon and Gore would be striking.

I don't remember any other former veep running for prez in the 20th century except Dan Quayle but come on.

[Fescue4u]

100. I did say that, but you pressed me and won

So now I conceed that when he was an infant that was his worst chance. Im not sure why you are enamored with this, but nevermind.


Btw, I did google the statistics.

Four VP's in history have won a presidental election (without the president first leaving office for any reason). Three were sitting vice presidents, and one was a non sitting, former VP.

So far, the ONLY VP to have left office and then win an election to become president was Richard Nixon.

So while I hope you are right (and that Gore comes on like gang busters in 2008), statistically, its highly unlikely.

[progressivebydesign]

97. Not damaged.. DETERMINED. He is a new Al Gore.

And he can kick any republican's ass in 2008.

[pattim]

5. Be. More. Entertaining.

Above all, what killed him was his reputation as a bore. He was wooden, he was stiff, he was boring. Presidential election are popularity contests, pure and simple. Sure, politics matters, but only in the realm of popularity. Good opinions make you popular, incompetence makes you unpopular. But a winning smile and charismatic voice can trump most everything.

[drummo]

44. The presidency is not about entertainment.

And the vast majority of the job is indeed boring. Managing the federal mess is not particularly exciting. But someone has to do it.
And it wouldn't hurt if finally the voters would get an idea during the campaign what that actually means.
Most voters knows nothing about the government (how many agencies do we have? Anyone?) but they think they can decide who should manage it?

Something is wrong with that picture.

[drummo]

45. Not in my world for sure. I don't give a shit about the president's smile

What is he? My spouse or what?

[Greyhound]

6. If he would just forego the handlers like Brazile that insulated him

so well from reality, speak his mind and his ideas, as opposed to the manufactured talking points the 'experts' try to sell. Realize that Democrats are not repugs and what works for the mindless minions doesn't work for us. I would consider him.
I would like to know who's idea it was to run away from Clinton.
:kick:
{edit}and pick a good running mate (Clark?). Not another corporate whore.

[Toronto Ron]

8. A few obvious pointers:

1) Gore must be himself: FUCK the idiotic handlers, focus groups, etc.

2) Focus on the failures of the REPUBLICANS, as a whole.

3) Pick a running mate who was clearly against the Iraq war (e.g., Clark, Feingold; NOT H. Clinton, Edwards).

[henslee]

10. No cutsey kiss. No daughter/handler. America loves a comeback but

for some reason -- I just don't see it... nor am I that thrilled at the prospect. But on the other hand -- who else could it be. Maybe someone will emerge.

[blm]

12. My impression was that the few uneven appearances Gore had were due to

a certain degree of stagefright. He had it when he first entered the Senate, and I would submit that it returned under the pressure of a stressful campaign where lies about him were cascading nonstop.

I would bet anything that the break he took from public life did him alot of good and made him much more relaxed.

I expect that his distance has also given him a greater appreciation of the more liberal faction of the Democratic party and has found it to be a more comfortable fit with the man he has become today.

[AntiFascist]

23. To counteract attacks from the right....

the next Dem. candidate should keep an arsenal of talking points against the current administration and Republican leadership. There should be more than enough material to choose from, but it should be used very strategically.

[Chan790]

13. I'd like to add to #1

DO NOT HIRE anybody who was a senior campaign staffer or adviser on the Kerry campaign. Bob Shrum, Joe Lockhart and Mary Beth Cahill lost that campaign as much or more-so than John Kerry.

[KittyWampus]

53. Joe Lockhart? Excuse Me? Lockhart is theBEST. Lockhart HELPED Kerry

after Kerry's miserable response to GOP attacks. If Kerry'd had the freaking brains to have Lockhart on board from the beginning, things MIGHT have been different...

but knowing the deck was stacked in Ohio, even Lockhart couldn't help.

[Chan790]

56. I'll give you Lockhart

I don't feel as strongly about him as the *other 2* who ran a perfectly viable campaign into the ground early and fast through a menagerie of bad advice and worse ideas.

[DefenseLawyer]

83. Can anyone explain how Bob Shrum keeps getting work?

He has NEVER won a national campaign. Ever. Zero for nine. Helluva resume. Is it like NBA coaches, once you get a shot you seem to always find a job somewhere, even if your teams invariably lose? Is he the Dick Motta of politics?

[drummo]

91. Actually Gore did win. And Shrum was his advisor.

[DefenseLawyer]

99. Yes, "won" by such a narrow margin

that the election could be stolen. Lost his home state. "Won", as you say, against a moronic, draft dodging, drunk driver. Pretended Bill Clinton was dead, pretended Nader and the disaffected left didn't exist, became a self parody in the debates, never broke the image that he was a stiff (which he is not), picked the disasterous Joementum as a running mate and of course followed the play it safe strategy that Bob Shrum as perfected in losing campaign after losing campaign. Yeah Shrum is a genius. Just ask John Kerry.

[Perky]

14. He would have to pick a VP other than Leberman or HRC

I don't think he has the grassroot support he would need.

I do not think he could pick either one. Lieberman clearly did not help him and HER would look either like pandering or a blast form the past I don't think it would sell.



My First choice would be a woman but Landieu has sorted of serewed the pooch.

Richardon would be the best choice for the better reasons you choose a VP(ability to assume the office) But I think you have to put a potential swing state in play (Indiana/Virgina/Florida) you get one of those and it is pretty much an electoral lock. Nobody in OHis strong enough.

As for other women: The only one with natural stature Would either be stabenow or Harmon and I do not thin either buys you that much in swing states.

[pennylane100]

18. What about Barbara Boxer.

or Hilary, if she loses to him in the primaries.

[Ignacio Upton]

22. No Hillary as VEEP

Having "Gore/Clinton" would simply reinvite all of the talking points used against Gore in 2000 (ie: "Clinton fatigue.") and Hillary by herself is a divisive figure.

[Perky]

25. I would pick Feinstien over Boxer

Because wh has a bit more foreign policy experience but b neither helps win any particular state becasue California is locked.

[Ignacio Upton]

26. Feinstein will hurt Gore

she voted for the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts that Gore worked hard to oppose in the 2000 camapaign

[AntiFascist]

89. I wouldn't, because as I understand it....

Feinstein's husband's company profited from a $100s million defense contract and after that she was kissing up to Condi. If I had the link handy to the story I would post it. A very clear conflict of interest.

[CTyankee]

15. Good points! I would add

the "social contract" component. People now have seen their faith in that social contract between them and the federal government get shredded. He should start talking about what the preamble to the Constitution means. Such phrases as "promote the general welfare" have meaning in the context of Katrina, the bird flu (hell, even the regular flu -- remember last fall?), our commitment to making us stronger vis a vis our competitors, e.g. China, strengthening the middle class a la Clinton-type policies, and a return to Clinton style economics (deficit reduction, for one). Those are wildly popular ideas and ideals among the majority of Americans.

Look, Gore will never have BUsh's base. Forget 'em. The majority long for a responsive federal government and a foreign policy that is respected among our allies.

Period. End of story.

[onehandle]

16. He said that he would not run in 2008, and...

...that his political career was over.

Period.

[Ignacio Upton]

19. If he is drafted then maybe he will change his mind

Out of all the other 2008 candidates, I am not impressed with the exception of Clark, who I supported in 2004 after Gore decided not to run (I was following the Draft Clark Movement during this time)

[Chan790]

24. NO on Clark,,,

he has presence and gravitas, is likable, smart and well-spoken, but lacks the acumen or skill to hold such a high office. He is, in a thought, the Democratic Colin Powell. People like him...he'd even make a good candidate, but he'd be an awful President.

He'd make a kickass NSA, Sec. of Defense or Sec. of State though. Declaring intent to name him, early after the nomination, to such a role would do much to kill the "Democrats are weak on defense" meme before it can take root.

[KittyWampus]

54. Um, Clark Has Already Held Executive Office. SACEUR. He Was On Par

with other heads of state.

[Chan790]

62. Heading NATO

hardly makes one Presidentially-fit. It's less than 50% of a head-of-state job really, just the defense and military side. It does provide more grounds to the suggestion that he'd be a great secretary. Being a truly-great secretary during wartime, which the current regeime has all but insured, might qualify him for a presidential run or a Veep slot later, but he's not fit for the job now IMO.

[KittyWampus]

68. You have no idea what SACEUR does, I'm afraid. Basically GOVERNS

as in, acts as governor.

Also acts as diplomat.

And he bascially held rank as a head of state.

[Chan790]

69. No, I know exactly what the SACEUR does

I've heard this argument before, it's a common one for supporters of Wes Clark who I feel is a good man and a great democrat. It's still only representative of 50% of the job. It has no duties with domestic issues or social issues or even the majority of governance. It's possibly the most powerful foreign-policy position in the world but that is all it is.

If Clark is serious about being President some day, he should take a "position on the team" or run for a governance position (i.e. Governor of a state). He hasn't earned the right to be a serious candidate for the nomination. Neither have 75% of the names bandied about on DU.

I'd like to see Clark as President someday but rather than throw a Wes Clark who isn't yet up to the job out there to govern poorly, I'd rather see him get some experience so that he's up the the Presidency as the insights, articulate nature and potential is there to be a great one. I've already established he can win, but it's not his time yet.

I don't know if you follow baseball, but the best analogy is that he's a good AA prospect, given time and resisting the urge to rush him, he'll be great. Call him up now and you'll ruin him. We do this too much as a party...certainly the Al Gore that people want to run in 2008 is a better candidate than the one who did run in 2000, I thought for all his experience then he seemed a little "green" (unready). This is why the "Draft Obama" movement is equally absurd. We keep rushing our prospects rather than letting them develop into decent candidates.

[drummo]

61. He never said that.

[Kazak]

17. 2008, a chance for America to correct its mistake?

I sure fucking hope so.

[Ignacio Upton]

20. Damn right, but Gore can't say it like that

People do not like to lectured to about their stupid decisions. Hence the anti-intellectual strain that hurt Gore last time. Gore needs to remind people about this, but the issue of "I told you so" needs to be framed as something that voters can resonate with.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. The biggest difference is that it would follow 2006! Win 2006 first!

If a Democratic can lead us to victory in 2006, they should have the inside edge in 2008.

2006 comes three times sooner than 2008.

2006!

[Chan790]

29. okay

However, we still need a 2008 strategy going into 2006. We can't wait until after the 2006 elections to start on 2008 because the GOPpers started on 2008 in 2004.

2006 comparatively means a heckuvalot less than 2008, as well.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. 2006 may mean votes count or don't in 2008, so it may mean more.

[Bluebear]

31. "OK. Now let's try it MY way."

You had two terms of my 2000 opponent. Are you happy now? If not, let's see what could have been.

[cassiepriam]

32. He won the first time, this time should be a landslide if polls honest.

Just let Gore give speeches like the ones he has been giving in the last few years. He is a great American.

[justgamma]

33. Show his sense of humor.

He's got a wonderful one and never showed it. He needs to spice up his speeches. Be himself.

[BiggJawn]

37. No Donna or Terry fucking him over.

McAuliffe and Brazille's lame "stratergy" cost Gore the election. I was dismayed that they were still on board to fuck-up Kerry.

[drummo]

72. What lame strategy?

The Florida fraud cost Gore the presidency.

When it comes to the election itself, Gore won it.
Therefore it's illogical to say that any kind of strategy cost him the election.
When you start a campaign with 20 point behind your opponent you don't have much choice.

[mzmolly]

38. People couldn't say "there's no difference" with a straight face?

;)

[drummo]

41. Well...

The one who worse earth tone suits because his advisors told him to do so.

That's spin. Any evidence which supports your claim? Gore obviously cannot wear earth tones because HE himself decides that he wants to wear earth tones, right? I mean you can do that I can do that but Gore needs advisors to tell that to him. He cannot wear anything without someone else telling him what to do. Sure. Don't you realize how stupid this is?

The one who did not do enough to respond to the Right-Wing Noise Machine

That shouldn't have been done by him. That should have been done by other Democrats much like
and army of Reps defended Bush whenever he was attacked. The candidate has to remain above the fray. If you complain they will call you a whiner.
But who helped Gore?

(but to be fair, not many Democrats with the exception of Bill Clinton have sucessfully overcome them)

As far as I know Clinton was impeached. That's hardly a way to overcome the right-wing attack machine. The only reason why he was not removed from office was that there were not enough Reps in the Senate. He was damn lucky for sure.

The Al Gore who chose Lieberman in order to blunt a MSM talking point that the country had a case of "Clinton fatigue"

That was not just MSM talking point but reality. Read this debate between stardate and lando on Kos. It explains why Gore would have been stupid not to distance himself from Clinton.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/25/19349/8314

(hypothetical polls between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush showed Clinton winning!)

Clinton was losing to Bush in every independent poll in 2000, except in one in Oct 2000, an ABC poll among registered voters which was within the margin of error, just like the Gore-Bush polls in Nov 2000
Another ABC poll among the general public in Jan 2000 showed him losing ot Bush by 11 points.(!)

Do NOT rehire Donna Brazile or any other top officials from your 2000 campaign!

Brazile made it clear that she will not take part of any campaign in the future.
But Brazile was NOT Gore's advisor. She did the logistical stuff not the strategy or tactics.

They are part of the reason why the election was so close.

Prove it.

Use your instincts. He needs to trust himself when he says something.

Another media spin. He believed in everything he proposed in 2000. And by the way he was dead right on every issue -- as we now know that.

In 2000 a meme repeated against him was that he would "say and do anything to get elected"

Which was not true. Just another media spin like the I invented the Internet smear.
It was based on the notion that Gore was trained for the presidency since his childhood and that he wanted the job more than ever before. In other words they were spinning a good thing (experience) into a bad thing (blind ambition)
Otherwise the very charge doesn't make any sense. There is noone who would "say and do anything to get elected".

and the performances in next two debates in reaction to an SNL video did not help put this myth to rest.

It was Clinton's advise. No kidding.
And Bush changed between the first and second debate in 2004. He was still not treated the same way as Gore was. Why?

Do not worry about what swing voters want, they will flock to you if they see someone who is strong and unafraid to say what he thinks

That's a pipe dream. They will not flock to anyone who disagrees with them on the issues that are importnat to them and they will not flock to anyone whom they perceive as out-of-the-mainstream.
Remember the 1992 Rep convention? They were strong as hell. They booed moderates off the stage. And they managed to alienate moderates who voted for Clinton.
Being strong is not enough (it's even a big question what "being strong" actually mean in a campaign or in the government, decisions should not be strong they should be useful)
Dean was not afraid to say what he thought. Sure that helped him a lot.

this is one of the reasons why some swing voters flocked to Bush over Kerry, who appeared indicisive whereas Bush appeared certain, even if it was for the wrong reasons.

But Bush was not a liberal. Let's face it strong liberals have no chance to get elected in today's America. Strong conservatives have. It can change by 2008 but today that's the case.

These people chewed you up and spit you out in 2000.

They will do it again. It's our job not his to defend him at every turn. Noone can defeat the echo-chamber alone. You need an entire army, like the Reps have their own.

[KittyWampus]

55. Be Honest, Gore Had A Make-Over With Consultants Advising Him.

the 'earth-tone' crap really happened. He did bring aboard some woman and I don't remember her name.

The problem wasn't the color of his wardrobe, it was the media taking the GOP bait and running with it.

and Gore and ALL Democrats need to deal with the reality presented by the Corporate owned-GOP friendly media. Candidates DO need to deal with it directly.

Clark, for instance, has shown himself as not just undrstanding the problem but actively doing things to surmount it.

[DefenseLawyer]

80. Naomi Wolf

was the best selling feminist author turned political consultant who for $15k a month apparently told Al how to dress and was responsible for all the "alpha male" "beta male" nonsense. I want the bearded Al Gore, figuratively at least.

[drummo]

87. She never told that to Gore and you should not listen to media hype.

Never forget: the press almost ALWAYS lies about Gore.

These set the record straight about Wolf, alpha male and earth tones:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011204.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh030703.shtml

[drummo]

86. Be honest. Prove it. Gore denied it. Wolf denied it.

Be Honest, Gore Had A Make-Over With Consultants Advising Him.
the 'earth-tone' crap really happened.

It was his decision. Who is your source? Ceci Collony?

He did bring aboard some woman and I don't remember her name.

Naomi Wolf who advised Gore to get the youth vote. What's wrong with that?
Wolf was Clinton's advisor in 1996. Every candidate has advisors. But apparently only Gore is bashed for it.
The whole alpha male thing was just another media hype.
Wolf denied it herself. She never told that to Gore. And it had nothing to do with his wardrobes.
The only adviser whom he listened to in that regard was his wife. Now that's indeed stupid. Why would anyone get advise from his wife?

Here's the case with Naomi Wolf and earth tones:
The two had nothing to do with each other, except in the media's zeitgeist.
Gore wore them even before Wolf became his advisor.


***
A bit of background: Wolf’s connection to the Gore campaign was first reported by Time, in a story released on October 31, 1999. The story had been carefully researched—and it didn’t say a word about earth tones! By the way: Like most humans, Gore had been wearing the troubling tones since he began his campaign in March. This is abundantly clear in the published record, as the link below makes abundantly clear.

But so what? The morning after the Time report, Ceci Connolly got busy. In the Post, she cited a conversation with Dick Morris, in which Morris “speculated” (Connolly’s word) that Wolf had told Gore to wear those troubling tones. By that afternoon, the corps was reporting this “speculation” as fact, and worrying hard about its significance. Wolf flatly denied that she had ever given Gore advice about his clothes. No evidence ever contradicted her statement. But so what! Earth tones were now a fact-for-life. Over the course of the next thirteen months, they were endlessly flogged as a troubling fact which revealed troubling parts of Gore’s character. And yes, this really did happen.
***
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011204.shtml

Additional facts about the media's insane obsession with Wolf:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121102.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh031003.shtml

The problem wasn't the color of his wardrobe, it was the media taking the GOP bait and running with it.

Yeah and apparently they managed to fool you, too.

and Gore and ALL Democrats need to deal with the reality presented by the Corporate owned-GOP friendly media. Candidates DO need to deal with it directly.

Candidates alone cannot do that. You need an entire damage-control army who do the job for you.
Bush himself almost never participated in damage-control operations because he wanted to look as above the fray.

[Ignacio Upton]

67. My rebuttal

The earthtones incident was real. His advisors suggested that it would make him more appear as more of a warm figure in public

Donna Brazille, Mark Fabiani, and Al Gore himself ran a weak campaign. They worried TOO MUCH about the polls and Gore's campaign staff and surrogates were not aggressive (I watched countless hours of tv in that election and most of the Gore staffers were weak compared to the Bush people in terms of the aggressiveness of debate.)

Gore needed to distance himself from Monica Lewinsky, unfortunately, but the idea of "Clinton fatigue" was exaggerated. Gore should have come out and used Clinton for his ECONOMIC RECORD and run on how Texas was being run into the ground under the Bush administration. It's not like there wasn't any "Bush fatigue" last year. Bush was losing a countless polls against "Generic Democrat" throughtout 2004, and many voters wanted "someone else" because at first they were not enthusiastic about another four years. HOWEVER, many of the people who lofkced to Bush did go to him because they saw him as a strong figure (wrongly). And It's not like Gore has to come out for nationalizing every major industry and to push for massive tax increases to be assertive. He has to project himself better. Voters will respect someone who will not pander all the time (ie. vote for the IWR and then say the war was a bad idea, which got Kerry into a tightspot and hampered his efforts to go after Bush.)One of the reasons why voters view the Democrats as weak is because they view them as pandering, the "say and do anything to get elected" meme that Bush used against Gore five years is very much alive, only voters look at the Democrats, particularly on the issue of Iraq, and say "do these people have principles?"

[drummo]

88. Re:My rebuttal

The earthtones incident was real. His advisors suggested that it would make him more appear as more of a warm figure in public

It was not real. Gore wore earth tones because he wanted to wear earth tones. That was it. Big deal.
Name those advisors and name your sources.
Where did you get this from?

Donna Brazille, Mark Fabiani, and Al Gore himself ran a weak campaign. They worried TOO MUCH about the polls and Gore's campaign staff and surrogates were not aggressive (I watched countless hours of tv in that election and most of the Gore staffers were weak compared to the Bush people in terms of the aggressiveness of debate.)

It's true that Gore's staffers were weak. But Democrats are always weak when it comes to damage control. It is a party problem not a Gore problem.
The candidate has to stay above the fray. If you bash the press you are a whiner.
Others have to do it for you.
Brazile didn't do it for Gore. Nobody did it for Gore.
The Dems are lame when it comes to defending others.


Gore needed to distance himself from Monica Lewinsky, unfortunately, but the idea of "Clinton fatigue" was exaggerated.


No, it was not. Clinton would have lost to Bush. Every poll in 2000 showed that, except
one in Oct and even that was within the margin of error.
In the South Clinton's personal approval rating was below 40% or worse.
Even his job approval rating, despite the economy, was well below the national average in red states.


Gore should have come out and used Clinton for his ECONOMIC RECORD

1.Most people didn't give credit to Gore just because Clinton this and that.
And why should they have? Noone should get credit for the job done by others.
Gore was just vice president not president. Veeps never get credit for the good things but they get the blame for the bad things. That comes with the job.
And exuse me, but most people can make a difference between Gore and Clinton.

2.You cannot separate Clinton from Clinton. There was no economic Clinton and Monica Clinton.
There was only one person who would have remided swing-voters that the Clinton years were immoral and would have made them thought that a Gore administration would be just as scandalous.
Noone, who criticizes Gore for distancing himself from Clinton, ever explained what exactly Gore should have done. They just say "Gore should have used Clinton". How?

and run on how Texas was being run into the ground under the Bush administration.

Now that would have been the mother of all exaggeration. Noone would have bought it. Bush was re-elected in Texas by a big margin in 1998 when Dems were winning seats in the Congress.
Noone, expect the most rabid Democrats, would have taken seriously such a charge.
Gore would have been labelled, once again, the attack dog, and the whole stuff would have backfired.
Remember that when Gore attacked Bush in the months before the convention his poll numbers went down. The press never went after Bush, they defended him against Gore.

One of the reasons why voters view the Democrats as weak is because they view them as pandering, the "say and do anything to get elected" meme that Bush used against Gore five years is very much alive, only voters look at the Democrats, particularly on the issue of Iraq, and say "do these people have principles?"

Agree, but I must add, when Gore came out against the IWR in Sept 2002 -- which was everything but politically safe then -- the RW said it again, "he would say and do anything to get elected" which pretty much showed me that no matter what the Dems do or say the RW will always use this soundbite.

[mattclearing]

47. My main beef with Gore, which I've said before...

...is the way he tried to pick and choose counties that benefit him for the 2000 recount.

Inarguably, the right thing to do would have been to call for a full, statewide manual recount, and pledge to abide by the results.

This would have been difficult to contest for the Bush team, and we all know based on the media recount that he would have won this count.

It also would not have been as easily assailable under the rationale employed by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

That he didn't ask for this (likely at the behest of advisors seeking to win maximum advantage), I think raises some valid questions about his judgment.

Like I said, it would inarguably have been the right thing to do.

The irony that it would have also won him the race is not lost on me, nor, I suspect, is it lost on him.

[drummo]

90. Several problems with your argument.

My main beef with Gore, which I've said before is the way he tried to pick and choose counties that benefit him for the 2000 recount.

He won more than 4 counties. Why do you think he picked those 4?
Because he had evidence, before the deadline, that something went horribly wrong in those 4 counties. He didn't have evidence, however, that there were significant anomalies in other counties, too.
He asked Duval, before the deadline, and the Rep election chief there replied that there were only a few 100 discared ballots. He lied. By the time Gore got to know that there were 1000s of ballots thrown out it was too late. Duval is a Rep county. But most discarded votes were in black prescints. Gore didn't learn that until after the deadline.

Inarguably, the right thing to do would have been to call for a full, statewide manual recount, and pledge to abide by the results.

1.Under Florida law you couldn't ask for a full statewide hand recount in the protest period. You had to request manual count in every county individually, including in those where every member of the canvassing board was Rep. But requesting it is not enough. If the board decides there was no reason to manually count the ballots then you cannot do anything other than to go to the courts.
Gore didn't want to go to the courts. He knew that once lawyers enter the picture the public would go crazy. (And they did) It was the Bush team who went to the courts for the first time to challenge the manual count. Imagine that they would have done that with all 67 county!

It would have been a logistical and political nightmare fore Gore. Remember how hard it was to convince the boards to start and finish those recounts in those 4 counties?
Now imagine the same madness taking place in 67 counties!
Don't tell me it would have helped to count every vote. It simply wouldn't have happened.

Gore wanted to count those ballots in those 4 counties because he thought that unusually large number of votes were discarded, or in the case of Volusia, a computer glich gave 1000s of votes to the socialist candidate. In those 4 counties there were major problems. Elsewhere, there were not or Gore didn't know about them before it was too late.

2.Under Florida law a candidate had the right to request manual count in any county where he thought fraud or machine problems altered the legitimate result. If you have any problem with that complain to the Florida legislature and the governor who wrote, passed and signed that law instead of bashing a candidate who had the face to use that law to prove that he was the legitimate winner of the election.
If selective manual count is so wrong why do many states have laws allowing it?
There were many Florida counties, where manual count wouldn't have been justified. Those where prescint-based optical scanners were used had very few discarded ballots and did not revealed any type of irrigularity or anomaly.

This would have been difficult to contest for the Bush team, and we all know based on the media recount that he would have won this count.

1.You underestimate the Bush team and the Reps.
It would have been very easy to contest for the Bush team. Even easier that to contest those 4 because at least those 4 indeed had
anomalies. But most counties didn't.
They would have gone to every court imaginable to challenge the recount in counties where there was no reason to believe any
irregularities or machine error happened.
They would have harassed every board -- except where every member was Rep. You forget that the entire election machinery worked under K. Harris. She influenced the Palm Beach board she would have done the same with every other board where Gore had the chance to pick up votes. Rep canvassing board would have picked a standard which favored Bush. Then Gore should have gone to the court to demand equal standard but the problem is that there was no law which should have been used for that purpose. So some counties would have counted dimples. Others
would have counted full-holes. Others would have counted nothing. And others would have counted hanging chands. That's what you call full, statewide manual count.
To learn how K. Harris would have influenced all the 67 boards read what she did in Palm Beach. Effectively she was the one who changed the standard from dimple to hanging, costing Gore several 100 votes.


2.He would have won the count IF the overvotes had been counted as well.
Many of those overvotes were in fact not overvotes but legal votes (punch for Gore + his name in the write-in section). But nobody ever thought that such votes actually existed (me included)
And since real overvotes are illegal by default a manual recount wouldn't have necessarly included them. In fact, none of those 4 counties counted overvotes.
For demanding the count of overvotes someone in the Gore team should have thought about those strange legal "overvotes". But noone did.
I didn't, either. And I don't think you did.

It also would not have been as easily assailable under the rationale employed by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

If Gore had filed for a manual count in every county he would have been damaged politically so much by the certification deadline, no court would have ruled in his favor.
Again: imagine the madness of Palm Beach in 67 counties! Imagine it in Duval where the canvassing board was all-Rep and thousands of overvotes in black prescints! Imagine that the dimple, hanging, pregnant issue would have come up in every puch-card county and every county would have made a different decision about whether to count at all and if so what.

No way that such a recount would have been finished before the certification deadline. And then Gore should have challenged the result before that bastard Dixicrat Sanders-Saul and the result would have been the same.

That he didn't ask for this (likely at the behest of advisors seeking to win maximum advantage), I think raises some valid questions about his judgment.


1.Gore actually did ask for it but Bush refused to accept it. He didn't want any recount because he was afraid he lost and it would be proven. Without cooperation from the other side Gore couldn't have got a full statewide manual count unless the FSC had ordered it. That was just the political reality.
The FSC never ordered a full statewide manual recount of all 6 million ballot. So I guess you think they too, were stupid.
Counting 6 million ballots by hand would have been a logistical nightmare. It was never done in Florida before and it wouldn't have been done in 2000 no matter whether Gore wanted it or not.

2.His judgment was based on many factors that you ignore. Including the patience of the American public and the fact that many canvassing boards were run by Republicans and the effect of Bush being certified as the winner. Gore hoped that the recount in those 4 counties would be finished before the deadline, that he would pull ahead. He was also sure that Bush would challenge that result in the court and then the only remedy would have been a full manual count. But that would have been ordered by court and the public would have seen Bush not Gore as the one who wanted to steal the election.

Like I said, it would inarguably have been the right thing to do.

No, it would have been a very stupid thing to do. It would have been a nightmare provinding virtually zero chance for Gore to prove that in fact he won the state.

The irony that it would have also won him the race is not lost on me, nor, I suspect, is it lost on him.

Come on! Based on what you saw in those 4 counties you really think that 67 counties would have finished to count 6 million votes before Harris' deadline? No way.

[Johonny]

48. Well

after 8 years of Bush hopefully the American people have come to understand there is a very real difference between what Al Gore stands for and what GWB stands for. For what ever reason America was convinced that the two men were very close in their ethics and policies.

[Cleita]

51. Number 5.

Pick a running mate who isn't a Republican like Lieberman. This thing going around that you have to have the DLC involved to win is a crock IMHO. He needs a true liberal, maybe one who is backed by labor.

[drummo]

92. Joementum was not a Rep in 2000. Even the left liked him.

Like Ariana Huffington, for example.
He was seen as the first Jew on a prez ticket.
He didn't want to invade Iraq in 2000.
He was not posing with Bush in 2000.
And he didn't attack Gore's populism in 2000.

Joe did help Gore to shake the ''Clinton's lapdog' image and that was necessary.

But Joementum is now a total asshole and Gore would never pick him for anything let alone for vice president.

[NoPasaran]

59. One difference for sure in 2008

No one would buy the notion that there was essentially no difference between Gore and whatever gargoyle the Thugs run.

[garybeck]

63. maybe he'd win his own state this time?

maybe he'll be more proactive on election fraud?

and I'd bet he'd be more fiery and energetic in his speeches.

[Ignacio Upton]

65. He won't win Tenessee regardless of how he runs

But if he is more energetic and is proactive about fairness in elections, then he has a good chance.

[kskiska]

75. Neither Bush ever managed to win their home state

Connecticut.

[drummo]

93. TN is not really Gore's home state. He was born is DC. He spent

most of his youth in DC. He was living in Virginia while in the Congress. And he rarely visited the state while he was vice president.
He maybe registered there but what exactly makes TN Gore's homestate?

Is Wyoming Cheney's homestate? Yeah on paper. But he is a Texan just like Bush.

TN is a retrograde fundamentalist state. Not Gore's world. He will not win it in 2008, nor will any other Dem, unless something really dramatic happens with the Reps.

[Saboburns]

70. Well, I vhappen to think Al Gore would win

I know it's a foolish suggestion, and I remain a bit of a dreamer. But, how about a genuine good man who runs his campaign not on polling data, nor advisors consent, but on honesty, integrity, and gut feeling.

Be a huge switch, I know. But it is the only way this country will ever right itself.

From a humble lurker.

[kskiska]

74. Hopefully, Karl Rove will be in Leavenworth

and unavailable to run the Repug's campaign.

[savemefromdumbya]

76. only if it were a Clinton-Gore 2008

I think Hillary will be the nominee. He may come a good second but then Kerry may run too?

[drummo]

94. Gore would destroy Hillary with one word: Iraq.

[hughee99]

78. Sorry to say it, but this time he would actually lose.

I have no doubt that Al From would again be involved in is campaign and thus ensuring it's doom, though I see definite improvement from him in the other areas.

[drummo]

95. Al From was NOT involved in the Gore campaign.

The DLC hated Gore's populistm. After the election they released a report "Why Gore Lost" blaming Gore for running a populist campaign.

Read it:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2938

[hughee99]

103. Sorry for the brainfart... Bob Shrum.

[progressivebydesign]

96. I was just about to switch my avatar to Gore. I love him. wish he'd run!

He would have my total and complete, undying, support if he ran. God.. we need him so much right now. sigh...

[AnnieBW]

98. NO EARTH TONES!!!

n/t

[ObaMania]

101. No Brazile, Lieberman, or focus groups. Oh, and no daughters..

.. helping work on his image.