Al Gore, not for me, and I will tell you why

[Adelante]

I liked Al Gore when he was Bill Clinton's vice president. I started having doubts during the 2000 primaries, not about him as a good person or a good elected official, not about him as a good potential president, but doubts he was a good politician, a good campaigner, a good leader. His choice of running mate was dismaying, to say the least, but even before that, I felt he was a poor candidate. He had a golden opportunity to run on the Clinton/Gore record; instead he pulled as far away as he could from Bill Clinton. I thought this was a huge mistake. It made me angry, because I thought he was shaving the mandate he could be bringing into the next Democratic presidency. I felt it added value to the anti-Clinton mean machine's success that Gore was such a chickenshit. I heard stories from friends in New York politics that Charlie Rangel was livid with Al Gore for applying the same distance to the African-American vote. After the election, in which black voters gave Al Gore 90% of their vote in spite of his campaign's willful neglect, the rift was confirmed in a Salon article.

So, I was already pretty pissed off by the time the GE came around that November; not enough to vote for anybody else, but pissed off all the same. I was pissed off that this guy who had every shot for a huge win blew it by being too cautious. Yes, he won the popular vote. Yes, they stole the election in Florida. But the margin should have been and could have been wide enough to overcome the vote tampering. The Republicans stole it, but Al Gore blew it, too. And why did it take a month, while he was at least fighting the Florida results, for Gore to ever mention that black voters had been wronged in Florida? Even then, he didn't raise the subject, he had to be asked by the press, the day after John Conyers begged him to keep fighting.

I was so wildly angry over what happened in Florida, I could forget for a while what a piss poor campaign Gore ran, and try to convince myself that avoidance of the voting rights issue, since those kinds of cases are time intensive and maybe that wasn't the best way to go; stick with the machines, the hanging chads and butterfly ballots. Okay, then. Well, that went nowhere.

Reading reports of the January 2001 vote certifying Bush's election in the Senate was nauseating, and still is:

Yesterday, for nearly 20 minutes in the cavernous House chamber, a dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, joined by a few sympathizers, tried in vain to block the counting of Florida's 25 electoral votes, protesting that black voters had been disenfranchised. Florida's highly contested electoral votes were key in Bush's victory after a prolonged legal and political battle following an inconclusive election.

Federal law requires both a House member and a Senate member to question a state's electoral votes in writing if a formal objection is to be considered. But the House members had no Senate support. So Gore, who was presiding in his role as Senate president, repeatedly slammed down the gavel to silence them and rule their objections and parliamentary maneuvers out of order.

-snip-

As Florida's 25 electoral votes were accepted, about a dozen black House members paraded out of the chamber in protest, to the applause of some Democrats.

Then, shortly before 3 p.m., Gore read out the numbers that showed his 271- 266 Electoral College defeat and said that the votes "shall be deemed a sufficient declaration" for the election of Bush and his vice presidential running mate, Dick Cheney. To prevail, a presidential candidate needs 270 electoral votes.

"May God bless our new president and new vice president, and may God bless the United States of America," Gore said to a standing ovation from the remaining House and Senate members, before gaveling the joint session to a close and signing autographs.

-New York Times, 1/7/01-

There were no African-American Senators at the time, and, in the House, Peter Deutsch of Florida was the only white Democrat to join in objecting to the awarding of Florida's electoral votes to Bush. The Republicans held a slight majority in the House then, but the Senate was evenly divided and Al Gore still held the deciding vote. All it would have taken was a single Democratic Senator to sign the objection to the Florida electoral vote, one single honorable Senator, and the 20 House Democrats who formally objected could have forced an end to the joint certification session. Voting would have taken place separately in each body on the merits of the objection, with a majority carrying the vote. If the objection had been accepted, which it undoubtedly would not have been, Florida's votes would not have been counted, leaving neither Gore nor Bush with enough electoral votes to become president. The matter then would have gone to the House, where the Republican majority would have decided for Bush anyway.

What did they have to lose? Nothing. What did they have to gain? What did we have to gain? A seriously wounding public relations blow at the very start of this stolen presidency, underscoring its illegitimacy, as well as a stand taken by our party for the voting rights of all Americans, and not least, that every vote be counted. Just one goddamned signature. Not even Democratic Senators I so respected, not Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin, Barbara Boxer, Bob Graham, none of them would sign.

Okay, after shaking my head in despair, flicking away some tears, letting my stomach stop turning, it was over. I even managed, by 2004, when I saw it in a movie theater, to gloat over how "Farenheit 9/11" whipped the Republicans, and to gloss over the scene in the Senate, which I hadn't seen broadcast anywhere in 2001. My wrath had turned so fully on the Republicans, appropriately I believed, I barely noticed Al Gore banging down that gavel, never mind thought about what it had meant.

And there on the Republicans is where my wrath stayed until January 2005, when the 2004 election was certified by the Democrats in Congress and it all came flooding back. That was a roller coaster of a day, plenty of great speeches to lift my hopes, and then the certification vote that dashed them.

That night I went out and rented "Farenheit 9/11" and took it home to watch that particular scene. I wanted to be sure I was remembering correctly after all this time.

The next day I read how Barbara Boxer, the only one to stand in the Senate with Stephanie Tubbs Jones and challenge the results from Ohio, said in the Chicago Sun Times, "Four years ago I didn't intervene, I was asked by Al Gore not to do so, and I didn't do so. Frankly, looking back on it, I wish I had. I do. I have to admit that. I'm not one that likes to admit mistakes. But, it really wasn't about Al Gore, it was about the voters, and I made a mistake."

It was about the voters.

Gore apologists will say Barbara Boxer lied when she said Al Gore convinced her not to speak out in January of 2001. I don't believe she would have lied. Why would a Senator who has the kind of courage she showed in January of 2004 lie about anything that happened in 2001? Why should John Conyers have had to beg Al Gore to fight for us in December of 2000?

It was about the goddamned voters.

The so-called Democratic base often demands of the leadership who voted for IWR to admit they made a mistake. A good number of the Democratic base who make this demand are now supporting Al Gore for 2008. I want Al Gore to admit he made a mistake. I never was fully into the sentiment, "Al Gore is my President," but I recognized the justice of it. I don't anymore. I will vote for Al Gore for president again, if I have to in 2008, if this party is fool enough to nominate him again. But never in a primary. That will never happen.

[Guaranteed]

1. I think a lot of Democrats have learned quite a bit over the past

3 or 4 years.

IMO, Gore learned the most quickly.

But, there's also a distinction that people who refer back to 2000 keep failing to make, and that's that the 2000 election was a run to center. The Democratic Party was unprepared for the fact that the country was slowly becoming extremely polarized, coming off of the triangulating, centrist philosophy of the DLC that had dominated us for the prior eight years. Understanding this, Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative," not fooling everyone, of course, but fooling many. More importantly, by doing so he did not signal the shift in politics that was coming with the extremist philosophy that we was about to bring.

Since then, some slower than others, Democrats have caught on to this polarization, and this need for leadership in representing our side, and what's important for our country. Gore, I think, is the ultimate example of this.

Just MHO, though.

[NMDemDist2]

2. agreed, I think Gore has learned some hard lessons and will not be

so "measured" in his positions if he chooses to run again.

[drummo]

83. He should be measured.

Passion is a very bad adviser. Reason is the way.

[dogman]

3. 2000 was not a run to center.

It was a run from Clinton. That was one of the reasons we got Lieberman then and again in '04. It showed a lack of loyalty and courage on the part of Al Gore, IMO.

[Guaranteed]

5. The "character issue" was a side issue.

It was most definitely a run to the center. While else would Bush, who is basically a fascist, have run as a "compassionate conservative?"

While Gore could have made it a referendum on Clinton's presidency, which very well could have been a winning tactic, he decided not to, because he didn't want the issues to get clouded by Clinton's "character."

I believe that was a mistake. However, I don't think it's something you can hold against him, considering the circumstances.

I have more bitterness toward Ralph Nader for running and destroying the election for us than I do against Gore for the decision that he made.

Again, it's all irrelevant, though. Things have changed. Gore has changed. CLINTON has changed. Clark has changed.

A lot of Democrats have changed. The whole country has changed- clearly.

[dogman]

12. Bush clearly ran to center.

It was Gore's job to hold the ground and not surrender. I think most agree Clinton was a centrist. By running from Clinton it contributed to the idea that Gore was not a centrist and he did not define or defend himself properly. i totally agree about Nader and i supported Gore then, and will again if he is the nominee. I just think that so much time has passed that too many have forgotten 2000. Remember that before Kerry was swiftboated Al was Gored.

[kentuck]

18. Bush was going to bring "honor and integrity" back to the WH...

What in the world was he talking about, I wonder??

[dogman]

19. Is that what got him elected?

Or was that him staying on message?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

67. The MSM got Bush elected, straight up. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

70. I agree 100%.

I believe the corpwhorate owned MSM have had it in for Al ever since he championed the internet, thereby democratizing information. He took some of their power and gave it to the people, they wanted to remain the sole gatekeepers to the truth. The same lessons can be learned from Greek Mythology, it seems to repeat it self throughout history and myth.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

72. I sense a Howler reader!

"The same lessons can be learned from Greek Mythology, it seems to repeat it self throughout history and myth."

Vintage Somerby. ;)

[Uncle Joe]

75. Yes, a combination of Howler, Bill Moyers and My own theory.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4725427&mesg_id=4725427


Bill Moyers had an excellent interview with the late Joseph Campbell regarding his book "The Power Of Myth". In it Joseph speaks of the commonality of all the world's religions and mythologies, even when they are separated by time and distance. He goes on to state that there are many lessons and much wisdom to be learned from myth. Here in Nashville (The Athens of the South), the home of the only full scale replica of The Parthenon of the Acropolis, mythology is never too far away.

What does this have to do with Al Gore? The lesson of what happened to Al Gore has repeated it self throughout history and myth. A hero or leader comes to the aid of the people and the ones in power trash him for it.

When I think of Al Gore, I think of Prometheus. Prometheus, the son of the Titan Iapetus who took pity on the misery of mankind, huddling in the cold and dark, so Prometheus stole fire from heaven for their benefit. Zeus (Jupiter), enraged at this loss of power caused Prometheus to be chained to a rock on Mount Caucasus, where a vulture each day devoured his liver, which was made whole again each night, this was supposed to go on for all eternity. Al would not be so lucky.

Al Gore, the son of Tennessee Titan Al Gore Sr. took pity on the American People as they were fed scraps of information on the vital issues of the day. Al, while he was in congress thought that the people should have equal access to the same information as the rich and the powerful. Al Gore recognized ahead of the curve (as he usually does) that for democracy to flourish, the people should have control over the flow of information that will ultimately control their lives. Information is power, so Al decided to become the primary champion of the relatively new technology (now known as the internet) controlled by the defense dept. and some universities and to open it up for everyone.

CNN recently held a poll as to the most revolutionary creation of the 20th century and the internet won hands down. So one might expect praise from such vision, service and dedication to the people, however that would be forgetting the lessons of Prometheus.

The corpwhorate owned MSM were enraged at this loss of power, how dare he! They wanted to remain the sole gatekeepers to the truth so that they could regale us with great stories of runaway brides, missing pretty white women, and various other lurid tales, etc. they could continue do this for all perpetuity. The corpwhorate owned MSM wanted to create a fictitious bubble or Matrix for the American People to live in and Al Gore had endangered their project.

Why would "American Journalism" want to do this to the American People? Because if you are ignorant, you are more easily controlled, and this is all about power. So Al had to be punished for empowering the American People. The corpwhorate owned MSM has no taste for liver with the possible exception of pate de fois gras (goose liver), so they decided to slander, trash, ignore and demean him in every way possible. It still goes on to this day to some degree.

The trashing of Al started in earnest in 1998, although I believe that the witch hunt against Clinton was in truth a back door way for them to hurt Al's chances of coming to power. The War Against Gore began in 1998 with a Wolf Blitzer interview; in it Blitzer asks Al what separates him from Bill Bradley? Blitzer asking Al of and Al is talking about his record in congress. As anyone would do in a job interview, Al speaks of his achievements, primarily in helping to bring about the creation of the internet as we know it today, which in fact is the truth; nothing is said by Blitzer at the time because he knows this is the truth.

One or two days later Dick Armey begins spouting his Republican Talking Points slamming Al for his hubris, and then the corpwhorate MSM begin goose stepping in unison and take up where Dick left off. The MSM says that "Al Gore claims to have invented the internet" which of course is a lie, and it does not end there. "Al Gore claims to have discovered Love Canal" another lie, although he held hearings on toxic waste in Toone, Tennessee which expanded to include Love Canal. The MSM said that Al Gore was wearing earth tones, so he must be a fake, besides being stiff and boring, etc. etc. Al Gore has led a remarkable life and sometimes it reads like fiction such as being an inspiration (along with Tommy Lee Jones) for the book "Love Story" but it is the truth. The corpwhorate owned MSM even did a 180 after the 2000 debates overruling their own focus groups and changing their reporting as to who won those debates overnight, someone had apparently heard him sigh (I did not). As long as Bush did not drool on his on his podium, he was given a standing O. The only time terrorism was ever brought up during those debates was when Al mentioned it. With the corpwhorate MSM, the vital issue of the day (and keep in mind this was after Osama had declared war against us) was who would you rather have in your home for a beer? The nation has been drunk ever since.

The result of all this slander, demeaning and trashing of our best and brightest is the Pottersville that we are currently living in today. But think how much more difficult it would have been for us to get the truth out regarding the Iraq War, the Downing Street Memos, Gannon/Guckert, supporting Cindy Sheehan, Bush's corruption and incompetence etc. without the internet. Think how much more difficult it would be for you to put your opinions out for the masses or praise your favorite leader’s virtues if we did not have the internet. Even the freepers and Bush owe Al; they are just too clueless to know it. It is for these reasons and many more that I will never abandon Al Gore for President.

P.S. For a historical refresher, click on link below and google “War against Gore”.
http://dailyhowler.com /

[Clark2008]

236. And Nashville has it's own Parthenon.

:hi: neighbor. I'm in Knoxville.

And, it's nice to see other smart people in this foolish red state.

[drummo]

256. Do you think any Dem could have won TN in 2000?

It's incredible how it had changed during the 90s. It's now your ultimate fundy state.
Gore said he no longer goes to church over there because they have been taken over by the fundies. Incredible. That was not the case in 1992 or in 1996.

What the heck happened? In 2000 it had a Rep governor and two Rep senators. Just like Utah or Wyoming. :puke:

[confludemocrat]

224. Yep, undeniable. n/t

[drummo]

87. He didn't stay on his message more

than Gore stayed on his message.

But whenever Gore came out with a new proposal the media portrayed it as a re-invention. Of course when Bush did the same he was praised as someone who wanted to talk about the issues.

"Honor and dignity" was about the same as "I invented the Internet", Love Story, Love Canal, lullaby , mother-in-law and the dog, James Lee Witt, standing girl in Florida school, farm chores, EITC and many other smaller lies ABOUT Gore which were spread by the media as lies told BY Gore.

Bush knew that. Rove knew that. And they knew that the "Liar" label would kill Gore's chances. That's why "honor and dignity" was their central theme. And according to the exit polls 80% of the voters who thought character was the most important issue voted for Bush. 80%!
Those exist polls also showed that character was the winning issue in every state, particularly in red states.

Not the economy, not taxes, not education, not SocSec or healthcare but character.

Gee! One may wonder why?

[dogman]

114. Which brings us back.

What good did it do to run from his record with Clinton? Yes, the media wanted Bush and waylaid Gore. Given that how can you say Bush did not stay on message? The message was Gore was a liberal and a liar. You say "But whenever Gore came out with a new proposal the media portrayed it as a re-invention.". That is not staying on message. There is no doubt Gore was right on the issues. Are you saying Gore lost then because of the media? I think to a large degree,yes. So now that the media is more consolidated and corrupt, what can he do? Especially with his public image already set. My concern is that his candidacy will be a real loss next time.

[prof_youngblood]

220. Gore and Kerry had they're shot at the title and blew it - they knew what

they were dealing with -- they know damn well what George W.W. Bush was and is capable of. Next, After JFK got eliminated, I don't believe it matters Dem or Repug, they're both in bed together.

[Guaranteed]

24. When the political dynamic is centrist politics, the last thing you

want to do is allow someone else to run to the center while you stay exactly where you are.

And that was the most centrist election I've ever seen in my lifetime- followed by a fascist presidency. Surprise!

[dogman]

122. You can't be more centrist than the center.

He needed to hold the center. Just because RW media said Clinton-Gore was to the left, it wasn't so. Clinton was and is a centrist.

[sweetladybug]

6. Bullcrap dogman. Al Gore is Loyal and he has courage

He was trying to distance himself from Clinton because the Republicans and their media would not let go of Bill Clinton's BJ (nothing else matter to that bunch, only Clinton's BJ). Can't you understand WHY Gore did what he did?
Gore 2008!!!!!!!

[dogman]

11. That's no bull.

Loyalty would have been standing up for what was right in their administration. That would have taken courage. The media was not going to give him a fair shake about anything. I understand why Gore did what he did - politics. Courage would have been standing up for the voters and their rights. If Gore can win the primary, Gore 2008 is how it will be. I don't put much faith in winning at that point however because it will be a tremendous battle and will require greater courage. The media is more consolidated and more beholden to the GOP than it was in 2000.

[sweetladybug]

13. dogman, in 2000 IF Gore had not distance himself from Clinton ,ANYTHING

Gore did or said would have been overwritten by Clinton's BJ. But in 2008 it won't matter. He can run on his and Clinton's record. In 2000 Gore was between a rock and hard place, BUT he still won the election. Gore is our man in 2008!

[dogman]

15. Not if he stayed on message.

You don't see GOPers distance themselves from their wrongdoings, they ignore any talk of them and come back to their message. Another problem Gore may have with running on his and Clinton's record is there may be another Clinton running on it. The point of the Op is that even though he won the election is that he also walked away from that win. If he wins the primary I will back him in '08,, but I really don't think it will happen.

[drummo]

92. If Gore runs in 2008 he will not run on someone else's record.

First of all he has his own. He doesn't need Clinton's.

But most importantly he will talk about the future, as he always does, not about the past.

[drummo]

254. I don't think Gore would run on Clinton's record

not the least because it would be illogical.
Clinton would not be a member of a Gore administration so why would it matter what Clinton did? Nothing.

Gore already had an impressive record when Clinton was just a little unknown governor. He doesn't need Bill and he knows how to govern without anyone's lecture.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

69. If you want to know if Gore has courage...

read one of the accounts of how he and his son flew into New Orleans and rescued hospital patients.

As to running away from Clinton/Gore record, Gore didn't. It was the centerpiece of his campaign!!! Go back and actually listen to his stump speech. It was all about those 23 million jobs created, etc. That is a canard from the MSM. Just because you are aware it's Kool Aid doesn't mean you can't sip it.

It's true that Gore only wanted selected personal appearances by Clinton, but so what? Gore won. People saying Gore didn't run a good campaign is like complaing that the winning team got outscored in the first half.

Finally, why do you doubt he'll win next time, when he's won every time he's been on the ballot in a general election?

[dogman]

121. I've seen some good teams lose because of the officials.

I've seen winning teams win in spite of the officials because they never left their fate in the hands of the officials. I doubt he'll win because he won't be running against Bush. He has also not won a national primary.

[drummo]

181. Are you talking about 1988?

He was just 39 and looked even younger. It was a mission impossible.
But it was not a disaster. He won 7 states.

[drummo]

91. But Gore didn't want to talk about the past.

And why should he have?

We do not elect a president for the last 8 years but for the next 4.

And Clinton himself said that every campaign has to be about the future not about the past.

Gore was never particularly interested in "running on the record"
He always ran on his agenda. Just check out his congressional campaigns or his 1988 prez campaing.
That's entirelly logical. I wanted to know what he would do as president and not what someone else did 5 or 6 years ago.

Moreover a Gore administration wouldn't have been the Clinton administration. So what do you mean when you say "their administration"? What did it matter what X or Y did in the Clinton administation 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 years before? Those people wouldn't have been in his administration, at least most of them would have been new guys.

[Uncle Joe]

68. Maybe Clinton is the one that showed a lack of loyalty.

Can anyone explain why it took him what seemed like 15 minutes to walk down a hallway during the convention that was to nominate Al Gore for President? Having the national spotlight on most all of the corpwhorate owned MSM to put forth an agenda is rare and precious. It seems to me, if Clinton really cared about promoting an Al Gore administration instead of his own self aggrandizement, he could have used that time much more effectively promoting Al for President from the podium.

[drummo]

84. Lack of loyalty??

And tell me what kind of loyalty did Bill Clinton display with his actions? He hurt not just Gore but the entire Democratic party. He did what he did right in the middle of the culture war yeah right the first thing Democrats needed was a disgusting adultery in the Oval Office by a Democratic president.

Clinton was only thinking about himself. For two years.
He screw Gore and the party alike. And Dems are still paying the price for it. Why do you think Reps are so successful in portraying liberals as immoral? Clinton give a huge boost for them, that's for sure.

Courage? What more do you want? Gore was standing up for Clinton
throughout the entire impeachment mess, even when other Dems called for censure, impeachment or resignation, Gore never wavered in his support for Clinton even though he disdained what Bill did -- and for good reason.
But for you that was not enough. You wanted even more. Gore should have let his own prez campaign be dominated by another individual who wouldn't have had any role in his administration.

Should Gore have kissed Clinton's ass, too? That would make you satisfied?

[dogman]

118. Gore should have won by an indisputable margin, that would have

satisfied me. Failing to do that because of putting the chips on Florida, which was enemy territory, he should have let the CBC have their shot. They showed courage and loyalty.

[drummo]

182. It would have been impossible

Gore should have won by an indisputable margin, that would have satisfied me.

Gore won 51 million certified votes. More than 3 million more than Clinton in 1992.
Where would all those Dem voters come from? Who do you think those people should have been?
Do you really think that in 2000, after 8 years of Dem rule in the White House, 8 years of scandals (phoney or real) there was such a great appetite for a Dem President?
No. There was not at all. People wanted change just for the sake of change. They liked Clinton's politicies because the economy was in good shape but they were fed up with Clinton himself and everything associated with him -- including Gore.
You say he had such a great advatage. Can you prove it? You can't because the polls showed that Bush not Gore had the advantage at the beginning of their campaings.
How can you explain that if there was such a great demand for 4 more "Clinton years"?

Failing to do that because of putting the chips on Florida, which was enemy territory, he should have let the CBC have their shot. They showed courage and loyalty.

And they were totally powerless. They couldn't have changed the result.

[KnowerOfLogic]

257. When times are good, people get complacent and want change for change's

sake. If you'll remember, what passed for a serious issue in 2000 wouldn't even show up on the radar screen now. Gore made a mistake by trying to second-guess himself and be too political in 2000, but unlike some other 2008 hopefuls, he appears to have learned something from the last 5 years.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. I have more confidence that Gore will go balls to the wall the second

time around. Gore or Kerry, however, can make it work, but they need to come out mad. Anybody who comes out like it's time to compromise, doesn't really know what Southern Republicans are all about. They will see it as a sign of pansy weakness.

[Guaranteed]

7. That's exactly right.

I think Gore, more than anyone, understands this.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. The 2000 and 2004 elections - "wedge issues" and "run to your base"

and the latest GOP "wedge issues" and "run to your base" positioning is good for us--

*Iraq - and no WMDs, no capture of binLadin, no capture of the anthrax killer

*DHS - which screwed up royally on Katrina and almost as bad on Rita

*Privatization of Social Security

*"Faith Based" Governance

***Creationism/ID
***Stem Cell Research (I'm a diabetic - this is a Litmus test)
***Global warming - with Katrina and Rita and probably another one
***Abstinence
***Choice

*Attack on the Middle Class

***Attack on Bacon-Davis
***Estate Tax
***"Tax Reforms"
***Pell Grants

*Honesty In Government

***Halliburton
***Michael Brown of FEMA
***Tom DeLay
***Bill Frist's stock deal

There is no "middle" left - so let's run to our base - hard.

[autorank]

9. Wow. Expository writing at it's best. A clearly thought out argument.

I share your frustration. I focused on two things when I saw the dreadful certification process on C-Span and then again in Fahrenheit 911.

First, there was the irony of the clear winner who was forced to gavel down black representatives at a time that Gore knew full well that tens of thousands of black voters who wanted to vote had been denied due to the illegal J. Bush/Harris "felon purge." The irony and tragedy of that was worthy of a Greek tragedy.

The second thing I focused on was the sitting Senators. I'm sorry but who cares what anyone says when it comes to the vote. They all knew that the vote had been stolen. The "hanging chads," the preppy riot, the dueling Supreme Courts were all a side show. The disenfranchisement of 90,000 black Floridians, was a crime against the constitution of the United States and a race crime. Many of the disenfranchised would have voted and almost all of them would have voted for Gore.

The challengers were pure heroes. Gore was a torn man, knowing that he'd pursued the wrong challenge. Had he listened to Alan Dershowitz who said the broader civil rights issue was the true path, he may have prevailed.

But the Senators, the sitting, complacent, mute failures...just sat there to their eternal shame.

I'm a strong Clark supporter (although he has to distance himself from the establishment quickly and finally). However, Gore should be our President, he won both the popular vote and the vote in Florida. He won the electoral college, had the vote been counted.

He has no shame. The challengers are elevated to the pantheon of true patriots. If only those Senators had stood and told the truth, we may have had a different country today.

But the Senators sat and said nothing. Shame on them forever.

RECOMMENDED STRONGLY. This is an important issue to be resolved!!!

[Guaranteed]

10. Are you agreeing with the OP's subject line? nt

[autorank]

31. No I disagree with it but it's something I've thought long and hard about.

I hope I made it clear in my post, I support Clark (in the absense of Gore indicating he might run) but think Gore is our best hope and has the vision, evolved over time and experience, that might give us a chance at some sort of future in and for the world.

It's a complex issue. I think that the post was well written and helped form the basis for a real discussion.

You did the Gore/Clark thread? If so I know why you're acking. My opinion didn't change between posts.

[Guaranteed]

35. LOL I just didn't understand.

I did read your whole post, as well as the OP, though.

I just didn't quite...

Anyway, n/m. :)

[marions ghost]

58. As we saw in the 2004 election

there is NO viable mechanism to successfully contest a presidential election in this country.

And until just recently most VOTERS wouldn't even support the idea that elections can be stolen in a big way. There is huge resistance in the public to accept that our sacred right to vote has been abused--it is not easy to admit to being a victim. But ALL the politicians knew what happened in 2000-- ie. that egregious crimes were committed against the voters. And true, they did not fight for us. But blaming legislators is only part of the story. You have to look at the climate: even after a clear abuse of power by the Supreme Court in appointing their preferred president in 2000--most voting rights groups and liberal political organizations rolled over and accepted it. AND THEY allowed it to happen again (in a different version) in 02 and 04?! Any gains that have been made in exposing the election crimes since then have been made by the dogged efforts of some very determined individuals, operating in the face of a media blackout and complicity at the highest levels.

What candidate is going to stick their neck out when the public in general doesn't even support them? Especially if they are then tarred with the "sore loser" label, permanently damaging their credibility? The fact that Gore and Kerry didn't fight very hard shows how completely intractable the system is. It was a lose-lose situation for them, especially as the minority party. Our byzantine, antiquated election system, long shored up by "special interests" and private ownership of the voting machines, is to blame.

As for 2008--
If Gore could win the presidency after all, (having learned from his own recent mistakes), it could be a healing thing for the country. It would provide a sense of justice and balance. But Gore has to get the picture--times have changed! He would now have to convince US--the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party--that he would act very swiftly to turn the Titanic around. He has to have the nerve to throw the Neo-con agenda into Reverse and then go full steam ahead in the progressive direction. (Forget this loser strategy of gently listing to the right....) This would take stamina and vision. I think Gore has what it takes, but not if he underestimates OUR collective vision.

[Donna Zen]

14. When the argument about whether or not Gore should run in 2004

would come up, as it often did in those early nightmare years, I piped up that Gore would know what they would throw at him, so it would be fine. Of course I was shouted down, and the arguments were persuasive. Anyway, it didn't matter because Gore decided not to run.

But I had already moved on. First there is the detailed account of Gore's actions in Florida; quite frankly, he sold us out to run another day. He didn't fight the fight. And for many months after that, while environmental laws, international treaties, and our rights were being rolled back, there was nothing coming from Gore. He left us. And I left him. Do you remember that grand statement he made after 911: George Bush is my president. Kinda was the coffin nail.

If Gore had decided to run in 2004, it would have made sense. But that fight never happened either.

Has Al Gore changed? I don't doubt it, but I've changed too. I never found Gore a compelling candidate, but I supported him. That was then. Now, I want someone who can win. Personally, I think that the "new" Gore has less of a chance of winning that the "old" Gore. I don't think that America wants to see us dredge up the memory. I certainly do not.

I hope Al Gore continues to speak out as he has done in recent years, but there is something deep inside Al Gore as a candidate that just doesn't sit well with America. I think this run by Gore wil seal the deal for a Hillary nomination, and that leaves me staring into a long dark night.

[Art_from_Ark]

16. What do you mean, "Gore didn't fight the fight"?

He took away his concession, once it became clear that shenanigans had been happening in Florida. He took it all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, after having roadblocks thrown in front of him the entire way. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in his favor. That's when Cheney's duck-hunting buddy on the US Supreme Court stepped in and convinced the court to make a good-for-one-time-only ruling against Gore.

[Donna Zen]

20. Yes, yes, yes

and that is what I thought too, until I read Kevin Phillips' book. There was a fight, and Gore decided not to make it.

Believe whatever, but Phillips lays the entire case out.

[Art_from_Ark]

26. Gore persisted for 6 weeks after the election

He took back his concession after learning of the shenanigans in Florida.

Is that the behavior of a man who just gives up?

He was stymied every step of the way in Florida. He was attacked on all fronts, with butterfly ballots, hanging chads, blatant disenfranchisement of potential Gore voters, ballot tempering, interference with legal vote counting, a hostile media, and arbitrary deadlines set by the Secretary of State who was also his opponent's campaign co-chair. He tried to take the legal way, but was stymied by unnecessary delays, such as Judge Sanders Saul's demand that truckloads of ballots be sent from South Florida to Tallahassee, even though he had no intention of looking at them (and he later accepted an invitation to attend a freeper event in South Carolina). But Gore PERSISTED, eventually getting the Florida State Supreme Court to hear his case and agree that ALL VOTES SHOULD BE COUNTED. It was only then that the US Supreme Court, led by Dick Cheney's duck-hunting buddy Antonin Scalia, stepped in and made a ruling that was totally contrary to anything in the Constitution, and tacitly admitted as such by issuing an unsigned opinion and declearing that the decision would not set a precedent.

I don't give a rat's ass what Kevin Phillips says-- I saw this drama played out and I know that Gore didn't surrender until the US Supreme Court ruling left him with no other choice.

[Donna Zen]

30. I saw the drama play out too

...what Phillips fills in is the drama that played out behind the scenes. It is very interesting. Very.

I don't hold anything against Gore. I can even understand his position, but Gore and everyone around him was playing a very different game than the bushes. This has made me want to return to the book and outline how this came down. If I do, I'll post it.

[autorank]

32. Please do! I'm about five books behind schedule!

[Donna Zen]

33. Okay...since this subject came up, I'll do it.

Right now I'm reading a history of Kosovo. This is long before the war. It blows away plenty of the myths, I wish I'd read this long ago.

Also, I'm suffering from a head-cold, the kind that makes you not want to read. A dilemma for sure.

[autorank]

41. I owe you one!!! Thanks!

:)

[Guaranteed]

38. Well, let's hear it. We all want the truth.

If Gore was totally out of line, let's hear it.

[Donna Zen]

153. BGL...I'm at work.

In fact at this moment I'm sneaking a peak at DU while I'm at work. BGL, I find your tone rather odd. I read a book that you indicate in a post beneath this one needs to be considered a rat's ass. Fine. I found what Phillips had to say interesting and surprising. The book, currently on loan to a friend, will be located and I will post in my own sweet rat's ass time.

Here's a clip from Matthew Miller's "Two Percent Solution" which illustrates a different problem, but one I found equally illustrative:

The most vivid illustration of today’s lack of seriousness concerns health coverage, where our ambitions regarding the uninsured have shrunk dramatically in the last decade, even as the country grew wealthier and the problem got worse. To see what I mean, go back for a moment to the 2000 Democratic primary campaign, when Al Gore faced a challenge from Bill Bradley. Bradley, to his credit, offered a serious $50-billion-a year plan to expand health coverage to just about all of the 40 million uninsured Americans. Gore’s plan was to insure only the 10 million or so uninsured children. Gore blasted Bradley’s plan as fiscally irresponsible, and the press dutifully cast the debate as a showdown between Bradley’s pricey liberal dream and Gore’s more modest, centrist approach. But here’s what the press never figured out: Bradley’s “liberal” plan to cover uninsured Americans was a slightly cheaper version of the proposal offered by President George Bush in 1992.

...at a time of $250 billion deficits, Bush put out a $50-billion-a-year plan (three times bigger than what Gore would offer in 2000) only to have Democrats bash it as “too little, too lat.” Fast forward eight years, and Bradley’s plan, offered at a time of equally outsized surpluses, was damned as a liberal fantasy and trashed by Gore’s team as evidence of a “reckless spending mentality (4-5).”

Democratic timidity largely comes down to this fear. “They’re convinced people wouldn’t buy what we believe the country really needs,” said Bill Bradley. “So we have to say what we want them to hear--that we’re with them,” but without offering policies equal to their problems...This pattern of what Bradley calls “the big rhetoric and the little mouse” was a winning formula for Clinton after 1994--or, more precisely, a sufficient formula for political survival...”This incremental bullshit is not gong to get us where we’ve got to go,” said Jim McDermott, a seven-term congressman from Seattle (23).

IOW, Gore proposed less money for health care that GHW Bush, at a time when there were budget surplusses, and the problem was growing. Where's the leadership?

Now all of that money has gone to bush's cronies. Now what do we do?

[Guaranteed]

37. Dang. Nice post. nt

[Apollo11]

56. Quit dumping on Gore!

I fully agree with Art_from_Ark, and I am horrified that other members of this Forum are trying to re-write history.

Gore kept fighting for several weeks until he reached a dead end, with nowhere left to turn. He only stopped fighting when it was clear that there were no further options open to him that could prevent Bush being inaugurated.

The SCOTUS had ruled in favour of stopping the Florida recount. The majority of Democratic Senators were not prepared to take the fight further. The Dems didn't have the numbers in the House and Senate to block the Bush inauguration, and public opinion was strongly in favour of reaching some kind of "closure".

The media did not help Gore either. They made it look like either Bush had "won" Florida, or otherwise that the race was a "tie". There was also an implicit idea that the Dems had been in the Whitehouse for 8 years, and so it was the GOP's "turn" to have the Presidency. Maybe it sounds crazy now - but that's how the media were portraying the situation back in November 2000.

Pro-Gore sites:
http://www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net
:)

[drummo]

183. Yep and fighting for the sake of fighting makes a lot of sense

Any evidence that that fighting actually would have changed the results?

[dogman]

21. Followed by the scene in Farenheit 9-11.

Return to the OP and click on the link if you are not aware of what happened.

[Guaranteed]

25. Gore wasn't a Senator, and it was his job to make sure the Senate rules

were followed.

He could have rounded up an "insurrection," as well, but he didn't.

The SCOTUS ruled how they did- down party lines. Gore had to deal with that. It was over.

[Art_from_Ark]

27. The scene in Fahrenheit 911 was AFTER the Supreme Court had made its

ruling. The Neanderthals were preparing to stage a riot if Gore didn't accept the ruling. Democrats were pressuring Gore to concede "for the good of the country". What else could Gore have done?

[Adelante]

66. He could have stood up by asking

one single Senator to stand with the Congressional Black Caucus. He could have stood up for voting rights! They all could have, but he was supposed to be the leader. That's what else, he could have led.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

74. Donna, here is why I feel Gore is compelling...

climate change. I became an Al Gore Democrat in 1992 when I read Earth in the Balance. This guy is a visionary who has fought harder and accomplished more on this issue than any other person on the planet. He is the one best suited to help us deal with perhaps the greatest threat in history.

Certainly he has warts, but so did Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Bobby Kennedy (staffer for Joe McCarthy!) and one of my all-time favorites, Jerry Brown. My point is we should respond to greatness and Gore definitely has it, IMO.

In view of your obvious committment to this issue, I'd just ask you to consider his major accomplishments and his indefatigable struggle on this issue.

Plus he was right about Iraq all along. I believe no other Dem has been so right on the big issues of this critical juncture in history.

[Adelante]

89. What is Gore saying now about Iraq?

Not what should have happened in 2002, but what should happen now? That's the biggest issue there is right now.

[drummo]

98. This war is lost.

OK? Get over it. You think Gore or anyone has a solution?
There is no solution because it's over. No matter what we do from now we lose. Stupid Clinton still believes that "good can come out it".
He tries to save Hillary's skin. It's not gonna work because everyone who, unlike Clinton, understands wars know that this is over.

That's why it shouldn't have been started at all. And that's why the Hill Dems, including Hillary, Kerry, Edwards should have listened to Gore in 2002 and not vote for the resolution. But they ignored him then lost a war together with Bush and the neocon cabal.

[Jai4WKC08]

99. That doesn't answer the question

Iraq may or may not be lost, but it's not over. And how Democrats respond to it is gonna affect how people vote in '06. And ultimately how they vote in '08.

What is Gore saying? Anything? Does he think it's lost and we need to pull out? If so when? ASAP, by a certain date, when something happens? What is he saying?

And if he's not saying anything, why not?

I agree that Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Bayh and a bunch of others should have listened to Gore. They should have listened to Clark too. But they didn't and we're there.

What does Gore think we should do now?

[drummo]

111. It does answer your question.

Because it's irrelevant what Gore or anybody else thinks we should do now.
We lost it anyway. You will not be satisfied with any answer since there is no good solution.

So let's say he would say we should get out now. Then what? It's a disaster. The long-term implications could be horrendous.
Do you want that?

Let's say he would say we should stay for 2 years. Then what? It's a disaster. Do you want that?

What you want is an answer that you would like. That's why you want an answer at all because you don't like the asnwer from Bush.
My point is that you CANNOT like any answer therefore it's irrelevant
what Gore or any other Democrat would say.

There is NO solution to this situation. Get over it.

[Jai4WKC08]

124. No, it doesn't answer anything

There may be no good solutions to Iraq... I'm not totally convinced that some aren't significantly better than others, but you may be right that there are no good ones.

But there damn sure are "solutions" to how Democrats should react to it. And I know there are people, good smart people, who are working together to figure out what that should be. I sincerely want to know where Gore fits in, and it's not unreasonable to expect him to say. That is, if he considers himself a leader of the Party. If he just wants to run his TV channel and teach college kids, then no, he has no such obligation.

Altho, larger than the tactics involved, I would sort of think that anyone with the means to reach large numbers of citizens has the obligation to use those means to speak up for what's right. As a private citizen, whether they intend to run or not.

You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting it's ok to stay quiet and let Bush do what he wants with no protest, no argument. He won't listen to us anyway, so we shouldn't say anything.

Hey, here's a strategy: let's let Bush pull a few hundred troops out in Oct '06 and all the Repub congressmen will tell voters what a great job they're doing. The media will take care to make sure everyone gets the word, so we don't need to say anything there either.

Or maybe we should just let Bush take the war to Syria or Iran; he'll have intelligence to "prove" they're helping the insurgents. More war. Oh boy. We'll stay quiet on that too, because it really doesn't matter what we say anyway, and there will be no solution to that either.

Yeah, those are great ideas.
:sarcasm:

I won't even attempt to reply to your paragraph that asserts there's no answer I personally would like, because I don't like the one from Bush. Whaaaa? Damn straight I don't like the one from Bush, but what does that have to do with what I want to hear from Democrats?

One thing I don't understand is how people--not saying you drummo, but a lot of other names in the Gore 08 threads--can bitch so much about how we need to get out of Iraq now, and then turn around and support someone, even talk about drafting him to run, who won't say one way or the other.

[drummo]

155. RE:"No, it doesn't answer anything"

But there damn sure are "solutions" to how Democrats should react to it.

But whatever that is it cannot be a solution of the Iraq problem itself.
It can be something that may be done but which would inevitable be just as bad or worse as the current situation.
We are doomed if we do and we are doomed if we don't.
So whether Gore would say withdraw the troops now or 1 year from now or 2 years form now what difference would it make? Nothing.

BTW Gore cannot possibly make a detailed proposal since he doesn't have access to information necessary to form such a detailed plan. And we all know the devil in the details.
He could not know enough about the situation in Iraq without becoming president or getting another office which guarantees access to information gathered by the IntelCom, Pentagon and other relevant agencies.


You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting it's ok to stay quiet and let Bush do what he wants with no protest, no argument. He won't listen to us anyway, so we shouldn't say anything.

Regarding this particular case I think one can stay quite since even if he speaks it will not make a damn difference. That's not always true, but it is true in this case.

Or maybe we should just let Bush take the war to Syria or Iran;

He can't invade any of those two. He doesn't have the military means.

I won't even attempt to reply to your paragraph that asserts there's no answer I personally would like, because I don't like the one from Bush.

Hey I didn't say that. I said this:

That's why you want an answer at all because you don't like the asnwer from Bush.

One thing I don't understand is how people--not saying you drummo, but a lot of other names in the Gore 08 threads--can bitch so much about how we need to get out of Iraq now, and then turn around and support someone, even talk about drafting him to run, who won't say one way or the other.

I'm actually not one of those. I think both leaving Iraq and staying in Iraq would be disasters. That's why I don't demand an asnwer from Gore.

[drummo]

95. Yeah and there is something deep inside

George W Bush as a candidate that just does sit well with America, right?
He is in the white House, after all, so according to your logic the above statement must be true. Even though candidate Gore got more votes from Americans still Bush just sits well with America while Gore doesn't.

Don't forget that if Gore was in the White House today you wouldn't write any of these things. So what's your logic?

[kentuck]

17. If Al Gore decides to run, he would not expect to be coronated...

He will defeat whomever wishes to challenge him for the nomination. And he would defeat some very good people...would be my guess. But nothing will be given him. He will win it.

[AlGore-08.com]

22. For the record, the GOP was dying to keep Clinton the topic of 2000

I hate to link to Free Republic, but it's the only place that this article is online:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bcfc1964c8.htm

Relinking Gore to Clinton
From the Weekly Standard
08/18/2000
By Fred Barnes

Around the time of the political conventions in August, voters were asked in a Gallup poll to take another stab at the 1992 election. This time, President George Bush defeated Bill Clinton by 53 percent to 42 percent. Then, assuming Clinton could run for another term, they were asked if they preferred him or George W. Bush. The answer was Bush, 51 percent to 45 percent. Finally, this same group of voters registered a verdict on Clinton's presidency. A whopping 68 percent said it's been a success, 29 percent a failure. The meaning of all this: The Clinton bifurcation lives! Voters still like Clinton's performance as president but they don't want him around. And so in the 2000 election, voters want a new president who's the opposite of him personally—and especially morally—but not a strong critic of his policies.

Until a month ago, that person was George W. Bush. His compassionate conservatism isn't a radical departure from this administration's policies, but he's quite unlike Clinton personally. Now, Al Gore has changed things by pulling off a strategically brilliant political transformation. Gore re-mains vice president in name only. He's disconnected himself from Clinton and shaped his image to meet the requirements of the Clinton bifurcation. His policies are roughly the same, but he's presenting himself as morally separate. How's he done it? First by picking a religious person and critic of Clinton's morals, Joe Lieberman, as his vice presidential running mate. And then by talking up religion, playing the family man by showing off his wife and children at the Democratic convention, and emphasizing the future rather than the Clinton-Gore past. Also, says chief Bush strategist Karl Rove, Gore's kissing his wife after she addressed the Democratic convention "worked...unbelievably."

So, eight weeks out, the presidential race comes down to a single question: Will Gore's separation from Clinton endure? Bush and his advisers recognize how difficult Gore will be to defeat if he's no longer seen as an extension of Clinton, indeed as the vehicle for a third Clinton term in the White House. Their goal is, in Rove's words, to "re-link Gore to Clinton." The job won't be easy. Gore has gained spectacularly on the moral issue in the campaign. A month ago, voters who said morality is a top issue preferred Bush by 68 percent to 24 percent, according to pollster John Zogby. But a post-convention survey by Newsweek found Gore leading Bush by 7 percentage points on who can best promote moral values. That poll was skewed by sampling too many Democrats. But a Washington Post/ABC News poll released last week showed Gore, after running 11 points behind before the conventions, has pulled even with Bush on the moral issue.

Worried, the Bush campaign conducted two focus groups in early September with what it calls "new Gore voters," ones who migrated to the vice president after the conventions. When a White House scandal involving Gore was cited, "there was a lot of nervous laughter," says a Bush aide who observed the sessions. In response, the Gore voters spontaneously began to mention other controversial Gore activity. This was obviously encouraging to the Bush camp. Now, the Bushies expect to raise at least a half-dozen of these embarrassing episodes in ads, Bush speeches, or the debates. These include Gore's alibi that "no controlling legal authority" barred fund-raising calls from the White House, his appearance at a fund-raiser at a Buddhist temple, his none-too-credible insistence it wasn't a fund-raiser, his excuse he was in the men's room when allegedly illegal money-raising tactics were discussed at the White House, and his claim that Clinton will be seen as one of America's "greatest presidents."

For sure, the Bush campaign will be accused of dwelling on the past, being negative, and focusing on Clinton, who's leaving office. Bush has said he wouldn't attack the president, but he doesn't need to. His task is simply to connect Gore to Clinton and to Clinton-related wrongdoing. True, this would stress the past. But contrary to conventional wisdom, most presidential elections are about the past. In 1960, John F. Kennedy was elected in reaction to the tired Eisenhower administration. Ronald Reagan won in 1980 because the Carter presidency had failed in economic and foreign policy. In 1988, George Bush Sr. won because the Reagan administration had succeeded on those issues. Four years later, Clinton was elected because the Bush administration seemed adrift. And so on.

The importance of the past makes Gore's feat of disassociating himself from Clinton, for the moment at least, all the more impressive. "Everything Gore's doing is working," says Republican strategist Jeffrey Bell (coiner of the term "Clinton bifurcation"). The architect of this strategy was pollster Stan Greenberg, who worked for Clinton in 1992 but didn't join Gore until early August. Greenberg spent most of the 1990s thinking and writing about how Democrats could attract middle-class voters. Just last month, he wrote in the American Prospect that Democrats should "re-enter the values debate." Voters like candidates who "put the family at the center of political discussion," Greenberg wrote, "and who devote themselves to a policy agenda that will help families meet the myriad challenges they face." This leads to the "middle-class populism" of government aid for college tuition, child care, prescription drugs, and health insurance that Gore proposes.

But that's not all of it. "Voters are drawn to Democrats who respect the public's religious faith and belief in personal responsibility," Greenberg wrote. "Reading Greenberg's article," says Marshall Wittmann of the Hudson Institute, a Republican, "you can see Greenberg telling Gore, 'You must choose Lieberman as your running mate.'" Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, certainly has delivered the goods, speaking incessantly about religion and morality. Gore "had to have" Lieberman to distance himself from Clinton, argues Wittmann. "No one else would have made it real."

For his part, Bush has de-emphasized religious faith since the Republican primaries, notably since his appearance at Bob Jones University in South Carolina became controversial. The Bush strategy assumed religious faith was useful politically with GOP voters, but wouldn't help in the general election. This left a void that Gore and Lieberman have filled.

In one way, touting faith is a cynical ploy. Lieberman didn't yap this much about religion until quite recently. In fact, reporters who covered Lieberman had a tacit agreement not to ask him about religion. No more. The message from Gore and Lieberman is: We're religious, we're moral, we're not like Clinton. Now, it's time for Bush's counter-message.

[dsc]

23. The most the Senate could have done

was to install that oh so awful Liberman as VP. The House was slightly in Republican hands but would have voted by state where the GOP edge was much greater.

[tinrobot]

28. That was Al Gore five years ago

I think if he runs again, you'll find a very different candidate, one who speaks truth to power. He's changed for the better over the past five years.

If he were in the primary, I'd vote for him over Clinton, Biden, and all the other DNC hacks whose inaction and passivity helped Bush send this country down the tubes.

[Jai4WKC08]

100. What's your evidence?

Why do you think we'll "find a very different candidate"?

He's given some great speeches, I'll grant you. He's given a few that were less than inspiring. No politician is "up" all the time, so I'm willing to hope for the best on that one issue.

But giving speeches is not running a campaign. Why should I think he'll do that better?

Let him run, if that's what he wants. Maybe he'll convince me he has changed. But don't ask me to assume he has with no evidence. That's called wishful thinking.

[zulchzulu]

29. I would still pick Bradley over Gore

With all the talk about Gore possibly running in 2008, so be it. Let's see what support he gets as the primary season comes.

The reasons I went for Bradley over Gore in 2000 was because there was something about Gore's sincerity that I didn't trust. He was wooden and tried to reinvent himself unconvincingly.

While nothing that Gore has done makes him untrustworthy recently, I say let the cards fall where they may.

If it was Bradley running and was 2000, I'd still pick him.

[Guaranteed]

36. I liked Bradley a lot, too,

but I do support Gore.

[flpoljunkie]

61. Looking back, wish I had supported Bradley, rather than Gore in primary.

Gore's initial speech, in Carthage, I believe--when he announced his candidacy, was so pedantic I wanted to scream at the television screen--actually, I probably did.

Gore, although a decent man, has a political tin ear--this has not changed, even now. Perhaps is is something in the water in Tennessee-- "Cat Killer" Frist has that maddening pedantic delivery, too.

Was pleased that he turned to the "people against he powerful" at the end, as it upset the DLC, at the time. They still blame it for his "loss"--only he did not lose!

I think we may well find out that Kerry did not lose, either. If so, I will support him for the ticket in 2004--he would still make a fine president--especially, if does not listen to Teresa, and not the DLC/ Democratic strategists.

I also admire John Edwards, Russ Feingold and Gary Hart. Any of them would make fine presidents. Have been out of the country. Anyone know what reason Feingold gave for voting for Roberts in the judiciary committee--found this disappointing.

[drummo]

102. He is pedantic because people are stupid.

Yeah they are. Just look whom they put into the White House.

[flpoljunkie]

109. No need to talk down to everyone, though.

[drummo]

119. Yes there is a need to talk down to stupid people.

No pandering, please. The voters are not innocent. Often they are worse than the politicians they support or oppose.
That's what they deserve. Because they could educate themselves if they wanted. But the problem is that most don't even want to do it.They are proud to be stupid.

Gore wants to make sure that every empty-headed voter can understand what he says because he has a very long experience about people just not getting his points.
Nobody is a prophet in his own country -- as we know it.

[flpoljunkie]

159. There is never a need to talk down to anyone, drummo. You are mistaken.

[drummo]

173. Well, I never felt that Gore talked down to me.

So probably those who do feel that way are oversensitive.

Anyway, why do you think that there is never a need to talk down to anyone? Imagine that you were talking to Bush. Wouldn't you talk down to him?

[drummo]

101. Wow! One more matured voter

who thinks wooden people are somehow unqualified for the presidency.

How stupid is that? If you want a dance instructor go to the American Ballet Theater not to the voting booth.

When did Gore reinvent himself and how? Be precise.

[WinkyDink]

134. BRADLEY??

Am I wrong, or didn't he advocate a flat tax??

[FrenchieCat]

34. As an African American voter,

I'm with you on this.

I never "felt" Al Gore....although I voted for him in 2000, and was very dismayed that he didn't take his place as POTUS.

However, I remember following the 2000 election nightmare aftermath, and Al Gore took a real long time in showing up and having something to say about what was going on. He was too political at that time, and it hurt this nation in a way that we may never recover. At that time, Al Gore was more concerned about his "reputation" than about the future of this nation. The suffering that has resulted in his unwillingness to "fight for our lives" (not his) in 2000 are numerous and constant.

Then I watched him evolve and I became hopeful that he had seen the error in his ways....until he endorsed Howard Dean in the primaries. I felt as though I had been stabbed in the back a second time. My vote was to become meaningless again before I could even cast it because he had decided who our nominee should be, and told us that we should get behind Howard Dean too. For those who supported Howard Dean for the nomination, that might have been "fine" and "dandy"....but for me, who didn't, I felt that Al Gore still hadn't learned the lesson; that it wasn't about him.

So although I "like" Al Gore, he is not my dream for our White House in 2008.

[Guaranteed]

39. What do you think Gore should have done when the SCOTUS ruled

against him in continuing the vote count in Florida, more than a month after the election?

[FrenchieCat]

42. IT's what Al Gore SHOULD have done before the

SCOTUS ruled and AFTER...
1. Al Gore should not have conceded on November 8th, considering that he was projected winner on election day and the fact that he had won the popular vote. There was no rush for his concession, except for in his mind based on those who were applying political pressure. He should have been more strategically methodical about this and a stronger adversary to those who didn't want him as President. Instead, he conceded on November 8th, which he retracted...but the damage had been done.

2. Al Gore should have called for a recount of ALL of Florida, not just some district that might favor him...and he should have done this right away, once it was determined that a recount was appropriate and legal.

3. Al Gore should have gone to Florida instead of Washington DC. Regardless of the possible bad press, he should have understood that he should be were the action was. He should have been all over the media every second, instead of attempting to mimick the Republican's example of what looks "presidential"...whatever that means?

4. Al Gore should have had something to say to America much quicker than he did (nothing until November 13th), and should have been more forceful, as he had been the first declared winner and as the winner of the popular vote.

5. Al Gore should have done what Bush did and done it BEFORE Bush did it; assemble a cabinet and had the media over to film them.

6. Al Gore should not have discouraged other senators from objecting in congress, and he should have allowed the CBC's objections, and should have mentioned this as a possibility in his speech when he conceded.
-------------------
The postelection events day by day
November 7, 2000 - Election Day
7:50 pm The Associated Press declares Vice President Al Gore the victor in Florida, based on Voter News Service projections from exit polls. The major TV networks call Florida for Gore between 7:50 and 8:00pm.
9:30 pm Florida begins to look more uncertain as the vote totals accumulate more in favor of Texas Gov. George Bush. Bush, talking with reporters, says "The networks called this thing awfully early, but the people actually counting the votes are coming up with a different perspective. So we're pretty darn upbeat about things."
10 pm Networks begin retracting the projection that Gore wins Florida; the state reverts to too close to call.

November 8, 2000
2:15 am Bush appears to take a decisive lead in Florida. Some estimates have Bush leading Gore by 50,000 votes. Networks project Bush to be the winner of Florida and the Presidency between 2:16 and 2:20 am.
2:30 am Gore calls Bush to concede the election.
3:00 am Gore leaves the hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. His motorcade heads to the War Memorial Plaza, where he plans to address supporters.
3:15 am Gore advisers call the vice president to tell him Bush's lead in Florida has diminished dramatically. He returns to his hotel without addressing his supporters. Reports show that less than 1,000 votes separates Bush and Gore in the state of Florida.
3:30 am Gore calls Bush back to retract his concession. Networks retract the projection that Bush wins Florida between 3:57 and 4:15 am. The state reverts to too close to call. The Presidency is once again undecided.
Morning The final margin of the Florida vote is reported to be 1,784 votes; Bush leads Gore 2,909,135 (48.8%) to 2,907,351 (48.8%) with other candidates receiving 139,616 votes (2.4%).
• Some voting irregularities are alleged, especially in Palm Beach County where voters complain that their punch card ballots were configured in a manner that was confusing.
• A full machine recount of votes is ordered in Florida - this is due to Florida Election Code 102.141 that requires a recount of ballots if the margin of victory is 0.5% or less.
• Florida Governor Jeb Bush officially recuses himself from the process.

November 9, 2000
The preliminary nationwide popular vote numbers are: Gore 48,976,148 votes and Bush 48,783,510 votes. Bush has won 29 states with 246 electoral votes. Gore has won 18 states plus the District of Columbia for a total of 260 electoral votes. Neither candidate has enough electoral votes to claim victory.
• Pat Buchanan agrees with the Gore campaign that the Palm Beach County ballot was confusing and says he believes many of his votes there were meant for Gore.
• Gore's team requests a hand count of presidential ballots in four Florida counties (allowed under Florida Election Code 102.166), Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Volusia. These four counties are strong Democratic areas and had a total of about 1.8 million votes cast.
• Vice President Al Gore returns to Washington, where he will spend most of the month.
• Bush meets with advisers and potential members of a Bush administration. Aides say announcements of Cabinet appointments could be made within a week.
• Sixty-four of Florida's 67 counties have recounted their votes, Bush leads Gore by 362 votes in an unofficial tally by the Associated Press.
5 p.m. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris says official results from the recount may not be completed until the following Tuesday, November 14.

November 10, 2000
• New Mexico, with five electoral votes, is retracted from Gore; the state reverts to too close to call.
• Oregon is called for Gore.

November 11, 2000
• The Bush camp seeks a federal injunction to stop hand recounts of ballots in several Florida counties because of alleged equal protection and other constitutional violations.
• George W. Bush heads to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he will spend most of the month.
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/pe2000timeline.php

SUNDAY, NOV. 12
2 a.m. Chaos. A sample recount turns up 19 more votes for Gore. The Palm Beach County Canvassing Board votes 2 to 1 for a full recount of all 460,000 ballots. A manual recount of all ballots, says County Commissioner Carol Roberts, “clearly would affect the results of the national election.”

10:06 a.m. Volusia County officials begin a manual recount of all 184,018 ballots. County lawyers move quickly to fight a 5 p.m. Tuesday deadline.

MONDAY, NOV. 13
9 a.m. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris orders all counties to finish their recounts by the 5 p.m. Tuesday deadline.

10 a.m. Volusia County sues to extend certification deadline. Lawyers for Palm Beach County, Gore campaign join suit. Bush lawyers join Florida to block extension.

1 p.m. U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks in Miami rejects Bush’s attempt to stop manual recounts in Florida.

2-3 p.m. Harris issues legal opinion on Palm Beach recount conflicting with one Tuesday by Attorney General Butterworth.

4 p.m. Gore appears on television, says it’s important to “spend the days necessary” to determine the winner.

7-8 p.m. A hand recount of 4,000 ballots in Broward County finds no big problems. County rejects full recount. Democrats vow to appeal.

TUESDAY, NOV. 14
8:15 a.m. Palm Beach County votes 2 to 1 to suspend its hand recount of all ballots after conflicting legal opinions.

11 a.m. James Baker proposes that Democrats drop their lawsuits and accept the state tally as of 5 p.m., including any hand counts in by then, and await the overseas absentee ballots. Warren Christopher declines: “That’s like offering you the sleeves from your vest.”

11:30 a.m. Miami election officials decide to hand count a sample of precincts, later deciding against a full recount.

1 p.m. In Tallahassee, Judge Terry Lewis says the 5 p.m. deadline for certifying vote totals should stand but says counties can file supplemental or corrected totals later. Harris can ignore these, Lewis orders, only if she uses “proper exercise of discretion.” Officials in Volusia Countyjoined later by Broward and Palm Beach counties move to appeal Lewis’s ruling.

3:30 p.m. Broward Circuit Judge John Miller allows the county to go ahead with a manual recount of all ballots cast throughout the county.

4:30 p.m. Palm Beach decides to submit its machine-counted results to the state and to proceed with a manual recount of all ballots Wednesday.

5 p.m. The deadline arrives for counties to certify and report their election returns to the secretary of state’s office.

7:37 p.m. Harris issues vote totals as of 5 p.m. Bush holds a 300-vote margin, which is considerably less than the 1,784-vote margin he had immediately after the election. Harris says she will comply with Judge Lewis’s order to consider late returns. She gives two heavily Democratic counties until 2 p.m. Wednesday to explain, in writing, why they want to add hand recounts after the 5 p.m. deadline.

WEDNESDAY, NOV. 15
8 a.m. Harris asks the Florida Supreme Court to make counties stop hand-counting ballots “pending resolution as to whether any basis exists to modify the certified results” after Tuesday’s deadline. She seeks consolidation of all election lawsuits in Tallahassee.

10-11 a.m. The Florida Supreme Court accepts a request from Palm Beach County to rule on whether it can continue to hand count ballots despite conflicting legal opinions.

11:30 a.m. Palm Beach Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga rules that county election officials can’t discard ballots with “dimpled chads,” ballots indented but not perforated. Democrats had challenged policy of discarding such ballots.

2 p.m. Harris receives letters from the three counties still hand-counting ballots, explaining reasons for delay. In Atlanta, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees to hear Bush appeal of a suit to halt manual recounts.

3:40 p.m. Broward County officials begin counting nearly 600,000 ballots by hand.

5 p.m. The Florida Supreme Court denies Harris’s petition to stop hand counts and orders further testimony from Palm Beach lawyers Thursday morning.

6:36 p.m. Gore proposes completion of hand counts in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties and asks that those results and the overseas absentees be added to the election tally. If that is done, he vows, he will not challenge the results in court. He also suggests a manual recount of all 67 Florida counties and proposes that he and Bush meet.

9:14 p.m. Harris says she has reviewed letters from the hand-counting counties and found their reasons for delay insufficient. She will not include their manual tallies in her final election results.

10:25 p.m. Bush rejects Gore’s offer. “The outcome of this election,” he says, “will not be the result of deals or efforts to mold public opinion.”

THURSDAY, NOV. 16
Early morning. Bush lawyers file papers with the federal appeals court in Atlanta, arguing that hand recounts are unconstitutional.

12:45 p.m. Gore lawyers ask Judge Lewis to require Harris to include ballots being hand-counted after the Tuesday deadline. Harris acted arbitrarily, the lawyers argue, when she refused to include them. Gore lawyer Dexter Douglass: “She says, ‘You can only have a hand count in case of mechanical failure or hurricane.’ And the attorney general said that’s a bunch of bunk.”

3 p.m. The Florida Supreme Court rules unanimously: Counties still conducting manual recounts of ballots may continue. The one-paragraph order does not say if those votes can be added to Florida’s final tally. Palm Beach County resumes hand counting ballots. Broward elections officials follow suit.

FRIDAY, NOV. 17
8 a.m. Amid disputes, hand counting resumes in Palm Beach and Broward counties.

9:30 a.m. In the case of the fateful Palm Beach “butterfly” ballot, Judge Labarga agonizes over whether if he determines it is illegal, he could actually call for a revote. He says he’ll rule Monday.

10:04 a.m. Leon County Judge Lewis rules that Florida law gives Harris “broad discretionary authority to accept or reject late-filed returns.” Harris then issues a statement hinting she is poised to certify the election when the absentee ballots are in by noon Saturday.

11:04 a.m. Baker issues a terse statement, saying he has spoken to Bush and running mate Dick Cheney: “They are understandably pleased. The rule of law has prevailed.”

12:45 p.m. Gore lawyers Christopher and David Boies caution against premature “partying” and say they’re taking Lewis’s ruling to the Florida Supreme Court.

2 p.m. Absentee ballots trickle in, adding to Bush’s total.

5 p.m. In a major blow to Bush, the high court halts Harris from certifying the vote and says pointedly “it is NOT the intent of this order to stop the counting.”

6:08 p.m. The federal appeals court in Atlanta denies for now Bush’s plea that manual recounts are unconstitutional.

SUNDAY, NOV. 19
Before 10 a.m. A court ruling kicks off the week. Republicans wanted to halt Miami-Dade's recount. They argue that sorting by machine to find questionable ballots would damage them (presumably in Al Gore's favor). A judge disagrees. Sorting begins.


10:30 a.m. Joe Lieberman tells Face the Nation that every last dimple should be counted or millions will say, "We were robbed."


12:36 p.m. All absentee ballots are in, say George Bush's attorneys, who ask Florida's Supreme Court to instruct the state to just name a winner.


MONDAY, NOV. 20
8 a.m. Miami-Dade County begins its (short-lived) manual recount. Broward and Palm Beach counties continue theirs.


10:46 a.m. Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Jorge Labarga rejects a Democratic petition asking for a county re-vote because its "butterfly" ballot was baffling. Labarga says he "lacks authority" under the U.S. Constitution to call a new election.


2 p.m. Bush and Gore lawyers head to the Florida Supreme Court. At issue: Should election results have been certified on November 14?


3:30 p.m. Democratic state attorney general, Robert Butterworth, says that overseas ballots, running roughly 2 to 1 for Bush, should count even if they bear no postmark.


5 p.m. The Florida farrago is too much for Jane Carroll, Broward County's sole Republican election supervisor. "It's like having Election Day for 10 days in a row," she says. "I need to get out of here." She resigns.


TUESDAY, NOV. 21
8 a.m. Another day of counting in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward (where Circuit Court Judge Robert Rosenberg replaces Jane Carroll on the canvassing board).


10:15 a.m. "I'm not going to manage the minutiae of each ballot being counted," decides Florida Circuit Judge David Tobin. He refuses Republican requests to set "an objective" standard for ballot review and to authorize a garbage-can search for missing chads.


2:05 p.m. The war over absentee ballots rages on. The Republicans deputize WW II veteran Bob Dole to demand inclusion. The Democrats' military man is Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam vet. He flies to Florida to preach the Gore gospel, though he concedes, " understands that he may be the loser in Florida."


Afternoon Bush attorneys file a legal brief with Florida's Supreme Court, arguing that the justices are "without power" to figure out which ballots should or should not be tallied.


9:45 p.m. The manual recount must count. That's the word from the Florida Supreme Court. The justices give the three counties until 5 p.m. on Sunday, Nov. 26, to send in the amended results. The ruling catches Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris by surprise (her staff gets the 42-page decision off the Internet) and blocks her from certifying the election for Bush.


11:02 p.m. Gore welcomes Florida Supreme Court ruling, saying that he and Bush should both "focus on the transition," in case a winner is declared.


WEDNESDAY, NOV. 22
3:30 a.m. Chest pains awaken Dick Cheney, who heads to the hospital. Heart attack? Doctors say no, then revise their diagnosis to a "very slight" one.


9 a.m. Sunday counting deadline looms. Miami-Dade election officials vote to recount only 10,750 "undervotes"–ballots missing a presidential choice.


11:30 a.m. Bush goes to court to force inclusion of hundreds of overseas ballots that lacked proper postmark or signature.


1 p.m. Gore loses a 157-vote gain when Miami-Dade opts to quit counting.


2:45 p.m. Bush OKs appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, charging Florida judges didn't have the right to order Harris to consider hand-counted votes.


4:33 p.m. Palm Beach opts to examine "dimpled" ballots.


6 p.m. Florida State Appeals Court denies Dem bid to force Miami to start counting again.


THURSDAY, NOV. 23
9 a.m. Broward County election officials forgo or delay their holiday dinners to count ballots. Upset by reports of allegedly lax standards in deeming a dimple a vote, Broward GOP chairman Ed Pozzuoli says: "Someone is trying to steal my Thanksgiving turkey."


10:15 a.m. "Voters had their votes inexplicably erased," say Gore lawyers, who file emergency petition with the Florida Supreme Court to reverse Miami-Dade's decision to halt the recount.


Morning. Lieberman speaks to a hospitalized Cheney, wishing him a speedy recovery.


Mealtime. The Bushes dine at the home of unidentified friends. Laura Bush brings green salad with apples and walnuts, gravy, and a roasted turkey breast. Tipper Gore cooks dinner, served at the vice presidential residence. Broward County's stalwart vote counters settle for carryout pizza.


2:45 p.m. A setback for Gore. The seven judges on Florida's Supreme Court, scattered for the holiday, confer via fax and conference call and unanimously agree: Miami-Dade need not resume the recount.


Evening. The tug of war over the hand count goes on. Team Gore asks the U.S. Supreme Court to deny an earlier request from Team Bush to bar hand-counted presidential election ballots. Gore lawyers call Bush's request a "bald attempt to federalize a state court dispute."


FRIDAY, NOV. 24
8 a.m. Broward County, where Gore has picked up 245 votes so far, begins recording dimpled chads, following Palm Beach's lead.

Throughout the day Congressional Democrats are miffed by "Sore Loserman" signs brandished by Republican demonstrators outside canvassing boards. One Gore ally needs guards to exit the Broward County courthouse. Charging that the protests disrupt the recount effort, the Dems send a letter to the U.S. Justice Department asking for an investigation.

10: 50 a.m. Cheney comes home; promises doctors not to work all weekend.

3:10 p.m. The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear an appeal from Bush on contested hand recount. Arguments are set for December 1 at 10 a.m.

5:10 p.m. Republican leaders of the Florida Legislature join the Bush legal team's hand-recount lawsuit.

SATURDAY, NOV. 25
3:20 p.m. CNN says it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to let TV cameras in for the Bush appeal since Americans are "eager to follow" the issue.

Afternoon. In warm, sunny Crawford, Texas, Bush relaxes at his ranch. In cold, rainy Washington, Bush backers demonstrate on the street across from Gore's residence. Summoned by E-mail, they outnumber pro-Gore group. Gore goes out for ice cream.

7 p.m. Bushites drop plans to call for a statewide review of questionable military ballots. Instead they sue for a re-evaluation in four Florida counties.

11:52 p.m. Broward finishes its count. Gore's net gain: 567 votes. Bush's statewide lead slips to 465.


SUNDAY, NOV. 26
4 a.m. Palm Beach's count-a-thon halts as Republican lawyers dispute the order in which precincts are evaluated. Dems dispute the GOP disputation. At 5 a.m., counting resumes.

9 a.m. Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota says he "truly" believes Gore won Florida. "I've talked with most of my colleagues . . .," says the Senate's leading Democrat on NBC's Meet the Press, "and there isn't any interest in conceding anything at this point."

Midmorning. Bush and Gore each go to church. Bush waves to reporters, says nothing. Gore sound bite: "Good morning."

11:30 a.m. "If George Bush is certified the winner at 5 or 6 o'clock tonight, I think the great majority of the American people will say, 'Enough is enough,' " predicts Bob Dole on ABC's This Week.

2:45 p.m. Palm Beach needs more time to count fewer than 2,000 questionable ballots; faxes request to Secretary of State Harris's office for extension to 9 a.m. Monday, instead of 5 p.m. Sunday. Harris says no.

7:30 p.m. Two and a half hours past the deadline, Harris officially certifies the count; the tally shows Bush ahead by 537 votes: 2,912,790 to 2,912,253.

MONDAY, NOV. 27
12:15 p.m. Like so much about the election, the week begins with the unprecedented: The Gore campaign files the first formal contest in the history of a presidential election, seeking to reverse the certified outcome of the Florida vote for George W. Bush. Gore attorneys challenge vote totals in three counties and ask a state judge in Tallahassee to order a hand count of some 13,000 ballots in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties that showed no votes for president during prior machine recounts. Simultaneously, the Gore legal team files an emergency motion to accelerate the contest proceedings.

12:52 p.m. In a show of Democratic support, Sen. Tom Daschle and Rep. Dick Gephardt hold a televised conference call with Gore and Joe Lieberman.

4:02 p.m. After the General Services Administration rebuffs Bush's attempt to take hold of the official presidential transition offices, Dick Cheney holds a press conference to announce that he and Bush will establish a privately funded office for transition planning.

8:55 p.m. Five minutes before the start of Monday Night Football, amid the flash of photographers' strobes, Gore delivers a nationally televised address defending his decision to contest the election. "Our Constitution matters more than convenience," he declares. All he is seeking, Gore says, is "a complete count of all the votes cast in Florida," noting that "many thousands of votes . . . have not yet been counted at all, not once."


TUESDAY, NOV. 28
11:27 a.m. The Groundhog Day election battle continues: Bush's lawyers file a motion objecting to Gore's request for an expedited trial.

1 p.m. A Republican-dominated committee hears testimony on whether the Florida Legislature should call a special session to appoint its own slate of electors. The Republicans fear that Gore, with help from Florida courts, might block Bush from winning Florida's electoral votes.

2:04 p.m. Gore strides out of the vice-presidential mansion and asks Bush not to"run out the clock" on further recounts. "This is not a time," Gore says, "for . . . procedural roadblocks."

10 p.m. In a blow to Gore's quick-count strategy, Leon County Circuit Judge N. Sanders Sauls rejects Gore's request to begin a recount of 14,000 undervotes the next day. Sauls puts off a hearing on the proposed recounts until Saturday.

WEDNESDAY, NOV. 29
4:45 p.m. Judge Sauls hinders Gore's quest for a new tally by December 12; Sauls rules all 1.1 million Miami-Dade and Palm Beach ballots must reach Tallahassee before Saturday, not just the 14,000 undervotes.

4:46 p.m. Leon County Circuit Judge Nikki Ann Clark rejects a Republican request that she recuse herself from a suit brought by Orlando-area Democrat Harry Jacobs. He seeks to toss out all 15,000 absentee ballots in the Bush stronghold of Seminole County, claiming that county officials improperly allowed GOP operatives to add missing voter ID numbers on 2,100 Republican absentee ballot applications. Clark has set a December 6 trial date.

THURSDAY, NOV. 30
7:45 a.m. The spectacle continues. A banana-yellow Ryder rental truck, loaded with 462,000 ballots, commences its televised journey from West Palm Beach to Tallahassee. It's no white Ford Bronco, but . . . no matter.

9 a.m. The Gore camp asks the Florida Supreme Court for an immediate hand count of 14,000 disputed ballots. Delay, they say, will make it a "virtual impossibility" to resolve Gore's contest by the December 12 deadline.

11:45 a.m. A Republican-controlled Florida legislative panel votes to recommend convening a special session of the Florida Legislature to designate the state's 25 electors. The vote comes a day after Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's comment that it would be an "act of courage" to call a special session.

1:10 p.m. Joe Lieberman asks Jeb Bush and Florida lawmakers to reconsider their desire to appoint a substitute set of electors. "It threatens to put us into a constitutional crisis," Lieberman warns.

1:30 p.m. After three days without public comment, George W. Bush takes questions with Colin Powell and Dick Cheney outside his Crawford, Texas, ranch. Bush scoffs at the suggestion that he seems out of touch and says, "One of our strategies is to get this election ratified, and the sooner the better for the good of the country."

FRIDAY, DEC. 1
6 a.m. The ballot brigade resumes, with two rental vans containing 654,000 Miami-Dade punch card ballots setting off from Miami for a Tallahassee courthouse.

8:32 a.m. Inflaming the absentee ballot controversy, Democratic voters file suit to throw out 9,773 votes in Martin County, two thirds of which went to Bush. GOP officials there, like their counterparts in Seminole County, were allowed to add voter ID numbers to some Republican applications for absentee ballots. Judge Terry Lewis sets a trial for December 6, the same date as the Seminole County case.

10 a.m. As throngs of protesters gather outside, the U.S. Supreme Court convenes to hear Bush's historic challenge to the court-ordered hand recounts in Florida. The justices' questions suggest they are divided about the legality of the Florida Supreme Court's intervention. A few justices hint the case should be resolved in state court. "We're looking for a federal issue," says Justice Anthony Kennedy. Asks Justice Stephen Breyer: "What's the consequence of our going one way or the other now in this case?"

Around 1:45 p.m. Republican John McKay, president of the Florida Senate, hedges on calling a special session to pick the state's electors. He opts to mull the matter over the weekend.

4:40 p.m. In another setback for Gore, the Florida Supreme Court dismisses a petition to immediately start recounting more than 12,000 undervotes from Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties. Less than an hour later, Gore receives another hit when the state Supreme Court rules that Palm Beach County's "butterfly" ballot was legal.

Around 5:45 p.m. A federal appeals court says it will hear a case brought by Florida voters and the Bush campaign challenging the constitutionality of selected hand recounts. It schedules a hearing for December 5.

MONDAY, DEC. 4
11:42 a.m. The week begins inauspiciously for Al Gore: In a unanimous order, the U.S. Supreme Court sets aside the vice president's critical win in the Florida Supreme Court. The state court ruling had extended the deadline for verifying the Florida vote, enabling Gore to narrow Bush's lead by adding hand-recounted ballots to his tally. In an unsigned opinion, the justices in Washington remand the case to their Florida brethren, admonishing them that there is "considerable uncertainty" as to the precise grounds for their ruling.

4:15 p.m. George W. Bush says he is pleased that "the Supreme Court is going to make sure that the outcome of this election is fair." Bush declines to second Dick Cheney's call for Gore to concede.

4:43 p.m. Gore suffers a double judicial whammy. Leon County Circuit Court Judge N. Sanders Sauls rejects all of Gore's arguments in contesting the election results and his request for a count of more than 12,000 ballots in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties that registered no vote for president in machine recounts. Sauls declares from the bench that there is "no credible statistical evidence and no other competent substantial evidence" to establish a reasonable probability that Gore might win if granted a hand recount of the undervotes.

5:42 p.m. Gore's lead attorney, David Boies, announces he has appealed Sauls's ruling to the Florida Supreme Court. "What has happened today," Boies tells reporters, "is that we have moved one step closer to having this finally resolved." But in a momentary loss of spin control, Boies concedes, "They won, we lost."


TUESDAY, DEC. 5
12:32 p.m. If this is Tuesday, it must be . . . a Tallahassee courthouse. Spokesman Craig Waters announces that the Florida Supreme Court will hear Gore's appeal of Judge Sauls's ruling on Thursday.

2:52 p.m. As workers erect risers on nearby Pennsylvania Avenue for the inaugural, Gore declares from the White House driveway that he doesn't "feel anything other than optimistic" about his chances to win it all. Gore, who has declined to join lawsuits in Seminole and Martin counties, adds that it "doesn't seem fair to me" that GOP but not Democratic operatives in those counties were allowed to add and correct voter ID numbers on absentee ballot applications.

Around 7:30 p.m. Leon County Circuit Court Judge Nikki Clark denies a motion by the Bush camp to dismiss the Seminole County lawsuit. A Democratic activist there seeks to throw out 15,000 absentee ballots, most of them Bush votes, after a GOP aide filled in voter ID numbers on about 2,000 ballot applications.

WEDNESDAY, DEC. 6
7:00 a.m. Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis convenes a hearing in the Martin County lawsuit–in the courtroom next door to the Seminole County trial. Demo-crats in Martin County seek to invalidate 9,773 absentee ballots; as one trial recesses and the other begins, Bush lawyers shuttle back and forth between the two hearings. If the 25,000 absentee ballots in the two counties are thrown out, Bush loses more than 7,000 net votes–and the election.

11:00 a.m. After meeting with foreign-policy adviser Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush says he has "pretty well made up my mind" on whom to name to his White House staff. His transition team's slogan: "Bringing America Together."

2:22 p.m. MSNBC reports a federal appeals court in Atlanta has turned down Bush attorneys' request to throw out manual recounts in three Florida counties, saying they failed to show the selective recounts harmed Bush.

5:16 p.m. Florida Senate President John McKay and House Speaker Tom Feeney announce a special session of the Florida Legislature. It will convene Friday, they say, to consider designating its own slate of electors should the results of the Florida vote remain tied up in the courts. The last time a legislature chose electors was 1876. House Dem-ocratic Minority Leader Lois Frankel fumes that "it is just plain wrong for the Florida Legislature to elect the next president of the United States."

THURSDAY, DEC. 7
10 a.m. In the vice president's mansion, Al Gore and Joe Lieberman watch the Florida Supreme Court hearing on their appeal of Judge Sauls's ruling. In Austin, Texas, George W. Bush meets with lawmakers, and James Baker fills him in on the hearing afterward. Bush lawyer Barry Richard argues that there is no "evidence to show that any voter was denied the right to vote." He calls Gore's contest "a garden-variety appeal." Gore lawyer David Boies contends that while time is running out, "the ballots can be counted" before the December 12 deadline for naming electors.

12:26 p.m. Circuit Judge Terry Lewis says he will consult with fellow Leon County Judge Nikki Clark–and then rule by noon Friday in the Martin County absentee ballot case.

1 p.m. A federal court rules that Dick Cheney is a Wyoming resident–not a Texan–clearing the way for him to serve as Bush's vice president. The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars electors from voting for two residents of their own state; Cheney owned a Dallas home from 1993 until last month.


7 p.m. The Gores and Liebermans double-date at a movie. The title: You Can Count on Me.

FRIDAY, DEC. 8
10:45 a.m. Bush says this may be the day "we'll finally see finality." But if the Florida Supreme Court rules against him, he will "take our case back to the Supreme Court."

Noon. The GOP-controlled Florida House and Senate convene a special session to ready their own slate of electors.

2:22 p.m. Judges Lewis and Clark reject the efforts of Democratic voters to throw out 25,000 absentee ballots in Seminole and Martin counties. News commentators begin discussing a Gore concession.

4:01 p.m. The Florida Supreme Court stuns observers, reversing Judge Sauls in a 4-3 decision. The justices go well beyond ordering recounts of 12,300 undervotes in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties sought by Gore, directing instead that a manual recount of undervotes begin immediately in all counties where a hand count has not already occurred. The court also directs the lower court to add to Gore's tally 168 votes in Miami-Dade and 215 in Palm Beach from earlier hand counts excluded from the certified count. The added votes narrow Bush's statewide lead from 537 votes to just 154. Perhaps 45,000 undervotes statewide will have to be counted.


6:19 p.m. Bush adviser James Baker laments the Florida ruling, warning it could "disenfranchise Florida's votes in the Electoral College."

9:18 p.m. Bush's attorneys ask the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of the Florida decision.

11:35 p.m. Judge Lewis directs that Florida counties complete their manual recounts by Sunday at 2 p.m. The Election 2000 roller coaster roars on.

MONDAY, DEC. 11
11:00 a.m. After stopping the Florida recount two days earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court convenes to hear oral arguments on whether the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in ordering a statewide recount of undervotes.

12:46 p.m. Audiotapes of the historic Supreme Court argument air nationally. The long wait for the decisive decision begins.

3:39 p.m. A committee of the Florida House votes 5 to 2 to approve a resolution to name presidential electors for George W. Bush. A half-hour later, a Florida Senate committee approves a similar resolution by a 4-to-3 vote.

TUESDAY, DEC. 12
3:34 p.m. The Associated Press reports that the Florida House has voted to approve 25 electors for George Bush. Just two Democrats join the 79-to-41 vote.

4:31 p.m. As expected, the Florida Supreme Court upholds lower court rulings in the absentee-ballot application cases in Seminole and Martin counties. Meanwhile, there is no word from the U.S. Supreme Court. For hours, the all-news cable news networks have run scrolls on the bottom of the television screen declaring that a ruling is expected any minute.

9:54 p.m. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 ruling split along ideological lines, steps in to end the election and Al Gore's quest for a final recount. It reverses the Florida Supreme Court decision ordering a statewide recount of undervotes, stating, in the per curiam section of its opinion, that differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount violated the equal-protection clause of the Constitution. The majority opinion effectively precludes Gore from attempting to seek any other recounts on the grounds that a recount could not be completed by December 12, in time to certify a conclusive slate of electors. Several justices issue bitter dissents. "One thing ... is certain," Justice John Paul Stevens argues. "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." Justice Stephen G. Breyer adds that "in this highly politicized matter, the appearance of a split decision runs the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the court itself."

WEDNESDAY, DEC. 13
10:10 a.m. It's D-Day for Al Gore. Gore directs his Florida recount committee to suspend its activities. Gore campaign chair William Daley says Gore will give a nationally televised address in the evening.

Around 1:45 p.m. Based on Al Gore's anticipated concession speech, the Florida Senate votes to recess and scrap its plan to name electors for George Bush.

8:56 p.m. Al Gore calls Bush to concede the presidential race.

9:00 p.m. In a nationally televised address, as Gore's family and Joe and Hadassah Lieberman stand solemnly nearby, Al Gore concedes he has lost his bid for the presidency. He asks his supporters to support George Bush, declaring, "This is America, and we put country before party." As to what he'll do next, Gore says, "I don't know the answer to that one yet."

10:03 p.m. Following an introduction from the Democratic speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, President-elect Bush tells the Democratic-controlled chamber that "our nation must rise above a house divided." Bush thanks Gore for his gracious phone call earlier that evening and says he is eager to move forward on Social Security, Medicare, and tax relief.

Thirty-six tumultuous days after the voters went to the polls, the presidential election is over at last.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/magtimeline.htm

[Guaranteed]

44. Was that *your* post?

In any case, I'll respond:

1) His concession was nearly immediately retracted. He had also been declared the winner, in the media, before Fox News took over and declared Bush the winner. If the votes had turned out in his favor, he WOULD have won. You're acting as if perception determined who the winner was, entirely.

2) Only certain counties had actual issues with the vote counts. Other counties didn't report the issues that were reported in the recounting counties. Most likely, the counts in other counties would have turned up very much the same as were reported. However, it would have been a good idea for Gore to broaden his attack.

3) I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Are you saying Gore should have been counting the votes himself?

4) Gore made public statements before the 13th. However, what was he to say? He was still formulating what he was going to do. It's important to only make statements when you actually know what you're going to say- when you actually know the approach you're going to take.

5) Yes, he should have. But I don't think that would have changed the SCOTUS ruling. After all- it was down party lines.

I DO agree that Gore could have done things to give a stronger public perception of the possibility of his winning. It just didn't occur to him at the time, though. And- ultimately, the ****reality**** is that nothing would have changed the SCOTUS ruling.

6) Whether Gore actually DISCOURAGED other Senators from supporting the CBC is arguable. I'd like to see some actual PROOF of this, before accusations are made. However, in any case, that was AFTER the SCOTUS ruling. They weren't counting votes in Florida anymore, by the Supreme Court's ruling.

In other words- it was over.


Gore had fought for well over a month- HARD. He did what he could. The second-guessing is almost entirely bullshit. His tone could have been better in responding to that Congresswoman pleading for a Senator's signature, but Gore was following the Senate's rules. She said she didn't care about them. That's not the way it works- although what happened was RIDICULOUS. It wasn't up to Gore. In any way. You can't blame him for that.

You need to give Gore his due. Still.

I'm giving Clark his due. It's time to grow up.

[Apollo11]

57. Hindsight is 20/20

Frenchiecat is second-guessing Gore, based on what we now know (or think we know). But the reality was that there was no way for Gore to keep fighting once the SCOTUS had ruled, and Congressional Democrats had decided to accept the SCOTUS ruling.

Pro-Gore sites:
http://www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net
:)

[flpoljunkie]

62. Well said, FrenchieCat.

Al Gore's time has passed.

[drummo]

131. And HiIllary's time is yet to come?

How is that? Just because someone is in Washington he/she is automatically a player while outsiders should not be taken seriously
as potentional prez candidates?
Nevermind that Hillary was there in the 90s and Gore was there in the 90s in the same administration and one is considered "fresh face" and the other is old news?

[drummo]

130. Re:As an African American voter,"

I never "felt" Al Gore

That's fine.

Al Gore never wanted you or anybody else to "feel" him.
He wanted you to understand what he says.

The good thing about the guy is that unlike Clinton he doesn't want anything from you when you talk to him. He doesn't want you to like him or admire him he just want you to understand what he says and convince you.

Great statemen connect to people in that dry intellectual way.
"Great" candidates have, well, nicknames in their pocket so they can have ammunition every time they want to charm a stranger on the street.
Did I say what I think about those "great" candidates?
:puke:

[election_2004]

40. I think Gore has a bright future....

...as a grassroots leader, and a media mogul who will pull Current TV out of its freshman slump/limbo. He will be able to continue fundraising and traveling the country to energize the base, while a fresh new face (Warner? Bayh? Lincoln? Bredesen? Clark? Feingold?) will assume the mantle of party standard-bearer to reach out to those outside of the Democratic base who are less partisan in their beliefs (of course, NOT the evangelicals or wingnuts, because they're going to vote Republican no matter what).

An influential presidential Cabinet Post may also be in Gore's future. Think EPA or Sec of Interior.

[montana500]

45. hmmm....

"Warner? Bayh? Lincoln? Bredesen? Clark? Feingold?) "


Why? So the Rover/Right wing machine has fresh new meat to use their smear tactics on? The smears only work when they are new, not the second time around. It is my beleif that the right wing media will contiune to define our new candidates in national elections. As long as the right owns the radio statons and cable news in this country htat is what will happen.

That's why this time around I'd like to see us send one of their creations right back at them. The smears will seem weak, uncreative, old hat and make the smeaeres look cold.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

78. Right on the money...

Gore is the best candidate, in part, because he epitomizes the lies of the MSM. The bloggers and cyberspace activists will have a field day with Chris Matthews, Ceci Connolly, Kit Seelye, Brian Williams etc., etc., for their surrealistic coverage of Gore in 2000. The grassroots strength he is building will belie the premise that he is not charismatic. Anyone who attends a Gore speech can tell tou that is a pure fantasy created by the MSM. This is war and we need Gore.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

104. Absolutely!

That *is* the right strategy. In fact, we need to take all the ones that the GOP/media axis smeared, form the entire cabinet with them and put them up.

It might also help if other elected Dems did not act as if there were any credence to the ridiculous charges that the evil axis trumps up against all Dem candidates; it might be a glorious day for the poor people that these elected idiot Dems purportedly champion, if they actually had a good word to say about their own candidates once in a while...

In short, Dem candidates not only suffer the wing-nut enemy onslaught, they also have a left flank to guard -- pretty brutal if you ask me, and the fact that both Dem candidates in the last two elections did as well as they did do, is testament both to their intrinsic worth and to their effective campaigns.

It is not very easy to fly with both your wings clipped, which is essentially what both Kerry and Gore had to do. Let us run them again on one ticket and see what the slimesters come up with!

[election_2004]

117. Calm down....

All I'm saying is that the Democratic Party must think rationally about this.

What makes you so sure that any smears wouldn't work the second time around? (especially if they were dressed up in a different package?)

[Guaranteed]

46. With all due respect, that sounds like a losing strategy.

It's not about "reaching out" to the center, anymore- at least for the most part.

It's about leadership. And that's what it's going to take.

People voting for Bush's nominees, and whatnot- they're not going to cut it. That's not proper for this political environment. If they get the nomination, they'll get undercut on grounds of integrity- the very same grounds Kerry got nailed on.

Centrist Democrats...Warner?????? Bayh?????

????? is right. There's just no way in hell.

It's not going to happen for DLC whores. We need LEADERSHIP.

[drummo]

120. Are you kidding?

The man was elected president! EPA chief? Why not a cook in the CIA's kitchen?

He will never ever be the lapdog of anyone again. He had that with Clinton and what did he get in return? Nothing.

[election_2004]

125. Being in a powerful Cabinet position doesn't make you a lapdog...

Unless it's under a president who decides to push all of his/her Cabinet members around...like Bush! (acting as their dictator, rather than their leader)

Gore or anyone else who is appointed to the next Democratic cabinet should be honored for their work in such a prestigious position, and the Democratic president-elect who appoints any of them should display faith in the people he/she appointed by letting them do their job and receive due credit for doing it well.

[drummo]

150. For a man who was elected president

being just the EPA chief would be a lapdog position.

He deserves better. Not the least because he knows a lot about many other areas and he was never a one-issue guy. He would like to influence national security, foreign policy, economic policy, trade etc.

Gore will not be any other pol's subordinate again.

[election_2004]

223. You speak with such certainty....

Have you personally talked with him about this, recently?

[iamthebandfanman]

43. i dont understand

i dont understand why u blame al gore for no senators standing up when it came time to certify the election.

there were reps, but no senators...and thats al gores fault?
what could al gore do ?
anything al gore did just looked like him being whiney.

i mean honestly
dont u know that al gore knows he was wronged?
why do you think his political leaning shifted more left?
he got the shaft by his own party in my opinion.

[FrenchieCat]

49. According to Boxer, Al Gore discouraged her from signing the

CBC's petition to object....hence, voices that could have been heard were not. Would it have changed things? Most likely not...but the point is that it wasn't Al Gore that was "wronged", it was us.

[drummo]

123. And who or what is the source of this info -- or misinfo?

Where did you read or hear about this? Who said or wrote it?
Is he/she a credible person or just another Gore killer scribe?

It was Al Gore who was wronged. He was preparing for this job for 30 years. He educated himself for those many years not you, he did the campaign not you, he worked his butt out for getting this job not you. All you had to do was to go and vote then go home.
But if you think this was all about you then it's your responsibility to make sure your vote is counted not Gore's.
But I guess you did nothing.

[Adelante]

178. The credible person is Barbara Boxer

Read the OP before you call it misinformation.

[AlGore-08.com]

185. Gore didn't hold a gun to Boxer's head. She could have challenged

No matter what Gore wanted her to do or didn't want her to do, the decision was hers. He wasn't her boss in any way shape or form. She's a Senator. He was the Vice President.

Even if Boxer thought of him as the President - - he still wasn't her boss. In any way shape or form. You can look at her voting record during the Clinton administration and see that she didn't always vote the way that the administration wanted. And that's what a Senator is supposed to do in office - - use her own judgment, not reflexively vote the party line.

Every vote she makes or does make is her responsibility and her responsibility alone. This buck stops with Barbara Boxer.

[drummo]

255. Agree.

I don't know whether this whole Boxer story is true at all, but blaming Gore for the decision of someone else is ridiculous.
It's like blaming Hillary for the health care debacle. It was Bill's decision to take up the whole issue and go with it to the Congress and the public. He was responsible not Hillary.

Similarly, if Boxer backed down Boxer was responsible not Gore.

[nvliberal]

47. When I read nonsense that Gore ran a "piss-poor" campaign,

I know that poster has been reciting all of the MSM talking points.

It's totally false; the media made damned sure Gore wouldn't win because they were teed off they couldn't run Bill Clinton out of town on a rail.

You clearly don't understand what has been happening in this country for the past decade or so.

And by the way, do you honestly think Gore would have EVER been allowed to take office if there had been an objection in the Congress in 2001? More pipedreamery. The outcome would have been the same, and Bush would have been installed regardless of whether there were objections.

The anger is misdirected, as usual. The American people allowed Bush to take office, and they didn't take to the streets in any meaningful way.

I was pissed off royal at Michael Moore for his crapola revisionism regarding the Congress. It was a lie, but a lie rooted in Green Party-type thinking of bashing Democrats.

[Adelante]

54. You are entitled to think it was not a piss poor campaign

I am entitled to think it was. I thought it was when it was happening and I don't need the MSM to tell me jack shit about it.

By the way, did you read in my OP where I *said* Gore would not have been allowed to take office and Bush would have been installed anyway?

Do you care to address the points of my OP? You would have to read it first, of course.

Points:

1-Race

2-Voting Rights for All of US


While you're at it, prove that Michael Moore lied. Use links to back yourself up. It's shocking to me that in the discussion of Al Gore going on all over DU, the use of backup in argument is going out the window.

Sadly, it does not surprise me that the the dismal treatment of African-Americans by the Gore campaign is not even mentioned until an African-American came in and posted.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

65. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

The fact is that Gore's campaign gained about 20 points in 18 months. How can a "piss-poor" campaign do that? How can a bad campaign win an election?

As to your two points, I would like to address them. First, on race, Gore and his father (and mother for that matter) have always been deeply committed on matters of race and have worked hard on it. You cite an article by Tamala Edwards of Time Mag for the proposition that the Gore campaign ignored black voters. Edwards was always part of the problem, a poster child for the MSM War on Gore. I have a question for you. Do you agree that beginning in March 1999 the MSM conducted a war against Gore, yes or no?

If you do not agree, I would suggest reviewing one or more of the following articles listed at the bottom of this post, before responding, because the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

Tamala Edwards covered Bradley in the primaries and then Gore in the general and her coverage on neither side was fair to Gore. So I have no way of knowing how much of what she is reporting is based on the facts and how much is selective. The tone of the article was certainly hostile and one-sided, so I suspect it is also selective. "David Boies didn't know how to argue equal protection?" Give me a break. The whole tone of the article was extremely snarky.

I volunteered for Gore in various parts of the country in 2000 and his support among black voters was generally very enthusiastic, as reflected in his record-breaking % of voters (over 90%).

As to voting rights, it is true that Gore did not fall on his sword after the SCOTUS halted the vote counting. Gore was in a tough position on that score becuse the American media was pretending the felon scrubbing scandal had not happened.

I do know this. Gore is fully committed to voting rights for everybody. Bush and his crime family are not. I will be honest and say I wish Gore had been more agressive about publicizing that heinous plot. But in fairness, he knew the chances that he would be inaugurated were slim and none, because of the double firewall of SCOTUS and the Florida legislature.

Gore in 2008 will be the ideal symbol of equal voting rights. He is a great (and lifelong!) Democrat.

While we are on the subject of race, I believe your candidate, Wes Clark, voted for that racist bastard Ronald Reagan. Reagan kicked off his Mississippi campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1980. This was a subtle signal to those who supported the lynchings that occurred there in the '60s. Plus Reagan supported genocide in Central America. One of the truly monumental scumbags of history. Anyone who showed the poor judgement of voting for Reagan is unqualified for the Democratic nomination, straight up.

Speaking of Clark, can you provide ANY evidence that he opposed the war before it became politically expedient to do so? By June of 2003, Dean was starting to take off as an anti-war candidate, so I challenge you to cite an anti-war speech by Clark pre-dating that.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1. The Press vs. Al Gore, Eric Boehlert

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=14976&cf2=1

2. He’s No Pinocchio, Robert Parry,

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0004.parry.html

3. Gore Media Coverage—Playing Hardball, Jane Hall,

http://archives.cjr.org/year/00/3/hall.asp

For some research data on quantitative differences between Gore and Bush, see:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh122002.shtml

[FrenchieCat]

79. In reference to your question on Clark's stance on Iraq.....

Speaking of Clark, can you provide ANY evidence that he opposed the war before it became politically expedient to do so? By June of 2003, Dean was starting to take off as an anti-war candidate, so I challenge you to cite an anti-war speech by Clark pre-dating that.

USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.

Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm

Clark's September 26, 2002 testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail...

...in the near term, time is on our side , and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force.This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action.
(See chapter that quotes Clark titled: The Post War Planning Failure) at the link here:
http://www.tacitus.org/user/Armando/diary/2

In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months.

....there is still time for dialogue before we act.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

And finally, Clark's statement to AP about the resolution on October 9, 2002:
http://premium1.fosters.com/2002/election%5F2002/oct/09/us%5F2cong%5F1009a.asp

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.

He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for a resolution, but only after vigorous debate... The general said he had doubt Iraq posed a threat, and questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward. Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports a resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas Clark's own words indicate he would only support "A" (key word!) resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as was." Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2035350&mesg_id=2036557
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept. 26, 2002

CLARK: Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be. Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.

So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.

I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm#WC


We don't want a bunch of young men in battle dress uniforms out there indefinitely trying to perform humanitarian assistance. That's not our job. We're not very good at it. We're also not any good at police work. Now we're doing a lot of it in place like Kosovo and Bosnia and we have and it's been unfortunate. So we should try to do better in this case.

I think you know with the value of hindsight what you realize is that there are many, you know, ifs, would-haves, and buts in situations like this. The question before the United States of America is whether we think our intelligence system is so faulty and our lack of information so gross that we would feel the need to rush to a military solution before we've taken the time to adequately build up the diplomatic and full military support capabilities that will assure we get a more favorable outcome. And, you know, it's a question of where the weight of the evidence is.

I no longer have access to the information this committee has. You may have information I have not seen, but based on the evidence submitted publicly and my experience over many years of looking at classified information, I would say the balance comes down on time is on our side in the near term. We don't know precisely how long that is and we don't know exactly where we'll draw the line on that risk.
-----------
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingsprepared...

---------
I especially liked this part, same testimony 9/26/02:

Since then, we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing.

There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2035350&mesg_id=2036557

09-02-03
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: U.S. WAR IN IRAQ IS STRATEGIC BLUNDER
Wesley K. Clark was Supreme Allied Commander for Europe (NATO) and ran the U.S.-led war in Kosovo, ... spoke on Sept. 2 with Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels.


I certainly can also locate more 2003 statements...but I think that the 2002 statements are more appropriate to your question.

[drummo]

149. Read this about Clark's flip-flops

If this is a clear position for you then maybe you also think bush has a clear idea about global warming.

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

[Jax]

151. Thank you for this link drummo

very interesting.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

152. Very important context for this debate...

thanks, drummo!

[Texas_Kat]

162. Read FactCheck's defense of Clark

in light of Gillespies RW talking points (they echo some of the things posted here):

Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie has been saying retired Gen. Wesley Clark was really for war in Iraq -- but the record doesn't bear that out.

http://www.factcheck.org/article130.html

This was all hashed out during the 03 primary.... why are we regressing?

[drummo]

166. This is just about Gillespie's lie about Clark

but this tells nothing about Clark's own contradictions which have been also documented by factcheck.org.

[Texas_Kat]

168. How is it that you missed the obvious?

You keep attacking Clark because of a statement he made was taken out of context - the same tactic that Gillespie used.

FactCheck

But Gillespie gives only selective excerpts of Clark ’s testimony to the House Armed Services Committee Sept. 26, 2002 . Actually, Clark repeatedly urged patience and diplomacy, criticized the Bush administration for undercutting "friends and allies" and said “I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq .”

Don't take our word for it: Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, a strong supporter of going to war, testified with Clark at the same hearing and said, “I think Gen. Clark doesn’t want to see us use military force . . . . The bottom line is he just doesn’t want to take action. He wants to wait.”

Analysis

Gillespie's attack on Clark is a classic case of ripping quotes out of their full context in order to create a false picture.

Perhaps Al Gore actually DID invent the Internets .... (forget those guys over in Bern).

BTW, I used the internet before it was the Web.... yes, that same one created by DARPA ... so I know the whole story. I like my informtion IN context, thank you.

[drummo]

172. No, the factcheck analyses I posted

did not take Clark's statements out of context. And it shows that Clark flip-flopped pretty heavily between Sept 2002 and the Dem primaries.

And I never attacked Clark by uising Gillespie's out-of-context quotes. In fact I never even mentioned those quotes, as they are irrelevant. What matters is whether he opposed or supported the resolution which gave unlimited power to Bush to do whatever he wanted with Iraq.

BTW, I used the internet before it was the Web.... yes, that same one created by DARPA ... so I know the whole story. I like my informtion IN context, thank you.

Well, not to be picky but you don't know the whole story just because you used the Internet. You don't know the whole automotive history just because you have a car. And you don't know the entire visual recording history just because you use a VHS tape.
And it's way too sloppy to say that DARPA created the pre-WWW Internet. Others outside of DARPA were needed as well.

[dogman]

176. Notice factcheck is not using quotes that are contradictory.

They are using "reports" to counter his quotes. From my experience I also don't buy factcheck just because that is their name. This is a case in point. Go to the Pindell link and see if you can find the info they cite. They also take Clark's op-ed out of context and make untrue claims about his praise of Bush. Read the article in context and you'll see he is damning with faint praise. A scholarly device that these people should be honest about when they take it out of context.

[drummo]

229. factcheck does use quotes that are contradictory.

From: The New York Times, September 19, 2003 :

At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question.

then

Clark: Let me tell you what my story is. I always supported taking the problem of Saddam Hussein to the United Nations and bringing international resolve to bear. I would never have voted for war. The Congress made a mistake in giving George Bush an open-ended resolution that enabled him to go to war without coming back to the Congress . . .

These are certainly quotes not just reports.

Moreover noone has disputed the credibility of the reports anyway.

They also take Clark's op-ed out of context and make untrue claims about his praise of Bush.

But this is certainly not out of context:

Liberation is at hand. Liberation -the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air.


Go to the Pindell link and see if you can find the info they cite.

I can find it. Here it is:

October 9, 2002
Former NATO commander backs Swett in rare political endorsement

By JAMES W. PINDELL
PoliticsNH.com

NASHUA, October 9 -- The former Supreme Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark, today voiced support for the the much-debated war resolution in Congress and the candidacy of Democrat Katrina Swett, who is attempting to unseat Republican Rep. Charlie Bass in the 2nd district.

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/october2002/10_09_02.shtml

He is also quoted in this report, talking about Bush's pre-emptive doctrine:

"Certainly in certain cases we should go to war before our enemies strike, and I think this situation applies here, but I am not sure we should write it down and publish it as policy," Clark said.

In reality it didn't apply there. We didn't have to go to war with Iraq.

[dogman]

234. True their sources contradict each other and are not clear.

Snip>These are certainly quotes not just reports

His quotes say he would not have voted for the resolution without it stating the President had to come back to Congress. He certainly could have been more clear, but since he was not in Congress he didn't know the exact language that was voted on. He knew there were efforts to insert language that would have required final authorization and he supported that.

Snip>But this is certainly not out of context:

It certainly is. this was a half-page op-ed that says this is how it appears but goes on to tell what is wrong with this view.

Snip>He is also quoted in this report, talking about Bush's pre-emptive doctrine:

What is the point of this? It does not show a flip-flop. It says there was a possibility that it might apply, but that you don't state that as policy. at the time it was made the inspectors had not completed their job and many did not know what applied. That is why he said there was no urgency, that we had time to make this determination.

[drummo]

249. Reply here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2121094&mesg_id=2127410

[Texas_Kat]

242. So who is James E Pindell and is he a reliable source?

Why did he not understand what Clark was talking about in 2002? Is this even what Clark said?... or only partly what was said......?

(posted in another thread as well since you seem to keep using this source for backup)

A little investigating reveals that PoliticsNH and Pindell are 'owned and operated' by the same reliable sources that bring you CNSNews, NewMax, the National Review and the Washington Times (and Rush Limbaugh as well). This sordid and twisty tale of hidden agendas and Republican fronts is nothing new, but since part of the purpose of DU is to inform, we should all be aware that what may seem to be a reliable source, often isn't. Be patient, we'll all learn from it.

This article from myDD about PoliticsNH (which is apparently owned by front companies for the Republican noise machine) may explain a bit:

http://mydd.com/comments/2005/8/6/16267/71243/22?mode=alone

Here also is a piece from the Boston Phoenix about the role in the 2004 NH primary of PoliticsNH.com, the sister site to PoliticsPA. The article can be found at http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/talking_politics/documents/02685359.htm

At PoliticsNH.com <<Click on " Our Team, " and it brings you to the photos and brief bios of four staffers: managing editor James W. Pindell; senior editor Brian P. Murphy, a former staffer for George magazine; Jordan S. Lieberman, who is the president of the Publius Group, which owns the site along with several others, including PoliticsNJ, PoliticsVT, and PoliticsNY; and columnist Dante J. Scala, who is also an assistant professor of politics at Saint Anselm College. A check through the Networks Solutions search site reveals that PoliticsNH is registered to NameSecure.com. Wally Edge is listed as the site's " administrative contact. " Edge did not return a call from the Phoenix. On the PoliticsNJ site, though, the " About Us " link says, " PoliticsNJ.com is operated by The Publius Group (ED. Note-an apparent front for The Claremont Institute) and our editor is Wally Edge, a pseudonym for the people who are working on this site. "

Last February, Roll Call columnist Stuart Rothenberg did a piece on anonymous political Web sites. When he called the Publius Group, Lieberman called him back but wouldn't provide additional details on who was backing the venture. Rather than identifying himself as the president of the Publius Group, as he's now listed on PoliticsNH.com, Lieberman told Rothenberg that he handled marketing for the company. Rothenberg's conclusion? " The potential for abuse with these sites is enormous. What would stop a candidate from setting up an anonymous political site and using it as a way to undercut or discredit an opponent?

It's often a mistake to lean on sources when you don't know the source's agenda.

PoliticsNH is actually an offshoot of PoliticsNJ (http://politicsnj.com/about_us_01.htm ) and the Republican Publius Group (http://www.claremont.org/projects/publius/). Please note the similarity of wording in the 'about us" page between these two sites and some additional information in this article at DKos.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php?title=Wally_Edge&printable=yes

The link between PoliticsNH and PoliticsNJ and Pindell is indisputable:

http://www.politicsnj.com/September18_2003.htm

About Us (PoliticsNJ)
We're pleased to report that one of our websites, PoliticsNH.com, has opened our first newsroom. We have a small office on Elm Street in Manchester, New Hampshire -- right in the heart of the first-in-the-nation primary. Seven of the presidential campaign headquarters' are nearby -- all within a four-minute walk. PoliticsNH.com has two full-time reporters: JAMES PINDELL, who joined us fourteen months ago from the Dominion Post in West Virginia...<snip>

That the Publius Group is undeniably an offshoot of the Claremont Institute. The Claremont Institute even has a webpage featuring their Publius fellow program. The Claremont Institute also sponsors CNSNews, NewMax, the National Review and the Washington Times.

Had enough yet?

If not, here's a bit more....

The Claremont lists Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. (of ES&S and voting machine fame) on its board of directors, and his wife, Roberta Green Ahmanson, on the same web page, it is logical to assume, as with many right-wing, Christian Reconstructionist groups, that Claremont is funded by the Ahmansons. (See: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson )

You'll find that the audience here at DU is neither unaware of spin nor unsophisticated in their approach to evaluating information. In other posts, there have been suggestions that you check your sources carefully and beware of using souces with obvious RW agendas. It would serve you well (and make your arguments more effective) to evaluate sources before you post them as references.

[drummo]

250. The problem with that is that the Pindell article

was not anti-Clark at all. Nor was it anti-Dem or anti-liberal.
And Pindell wrote exactly what AP wrote except that it gave an actual quote from Clark which again was not twisted to portray Clark in the negative light at all.
So the question is not whether PoliticsNH is sponsored by groups who also sponsor right-wing outlets but whether this particular article was inaccurate at all and if so exactly where.

I found positive articles in the Weekly Standard about Gore and negativ articles about him in The Nation. If your theory would always apply that couldn't have happened.

[Texas_Kat]

177. Actually it was the Adam Nagourney (AP writer)

who most egregiously misquoted him.

"Adam Nagourney, “Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War,” The New York Times 19 Sept. 2003: A18

Goodness gracious.... where've you been since 2003? This is all ground hashed out long ago.

Are you honestly trying to tell anybody that Clark was against the war in 2002, but supported it in 2003?

Wow! What a stretch!

Idiot.... 'used the Internet', indeed. Used to do a little work long ago (bout the time personal computers were becoming buyable) with several of the people who really DID invent the Internets.

Be careful of being condescending here ... you never know who you're talking to and you come off as being a bit of a prig.

[drummo]

230. First of all it's not Internets

but Internet.

"Internets" was originally used as shorthand for cluelessness about the Internet or about technology in general. It gained widespread currency when U.S. President George W. Bush referred to "the Internets" in the 2nd Presidential Debate with U.S. Senator John Kerry on October 8, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internets_(colloquialism)

Secondly as Vint Cerf himself said there is not one person or a single group who invented the Internet. The Internet was developed into what it is today as a result of the work of hundreds if not thousands of people over many decades. And I doubt that you worked with hundreds let alone thousands of people.

Finally, noone cited Adam Nagourney's NYT article.
Not Factcheck and not me.
And no. Clark was not against the war in 2002 and I certainly didn't say he was. Quite to the contrary. I pointed out that he supported the resolution.

So what's your point?

Be careful of being condescending here ... you never know who you're talking to and you come off as being a bit of a prig.

In fact I don't know.
But you don't know who you're talking to, either.
So be careful.

But if you are so smart tell me what's your definition of "personal computer"? Since it is a very ambiguous phrase your statement that you "used to do a little work long ago (bout the time personal computers were becoming buyable)" is not very informative.

[Texas_Kat]

241. Internets..... duh, you don't sarcasm well, do you?

Lordie .... sorry about that.... I assumed you knew.

[drummo]

248. No I didn't. I heard about it only after reading your post.

But I saw it many times in the past from real assholes so I thought you screw it, too. Sorry.

[CarolNYC]

80. Sept 2002

"Speaking of Clark, can you provide ANY evidence that he opposed the war before it became politically expedient to do so? By June of 2003, Dean was starting to take off as an anti-war candidate, so I challenge you to cite an anti-war speech by Clark pre-dating that."

He testified before the HASC in September 2002 in an effort to keep us from making the mistake of getting into this war in the first place....Judging from the easy passage of the IWR, doesn't seem like too many people were thinking it was a politically expedient thing to do at the time....Sept 2002 comes before June 2003, no? It does on my calendar at least.

BTW, Paul Wellston cited the General's testimony in his opposition to the IWR.

And then there was an interview he did with salon.com right before the War...I believe it was up somtime in March 2003....where he was critical of us getting into the War. It was my introduction to the General and I was very pleased to hear him speak the way he did because, at the time, I felt that everybody was too darn scared of being called unpatriotic to voice any criticism of the President and his war. March 2003 comes before June 2003 too.

[FrenchieCat]

85. here's the info sources....

Paul Wellstone cited the General's testimony in his opposition to the IWR.

“But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida." Paul Wellstone
http://www.wellstoneaction.org/news/news_detail.aspx?it...

and also got Fiore's PREWAR cartoon where this is mentioned
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dissent.html

[CarolNYC]

96. thanks

for the Wellstone source...and the fiore cartoon...I'd forgotten about that one....

[Admiral Loinpresser]

86. Au contraire...

I read the article linked in the post immediately above:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

The title is: Let's Wait to Attack, as opposed to Let's Not Attack. I think the title belies your assertion. A relevant quote:

"As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace."

Granted, Clark was making reasonable arguments about things like multilateralism and avoiding anti-Americanism, but the implication was very clear: he was advocating invasion, albeit not the insane methodology of the neocons.

I truly was not aware of his pre-invasion position when I asked this question, having heard conflicting reports regarding his pre-invasion stance. Having read his CNN editorial, I believe he was in favor of invading, but with caveats. Am I missing something?

[FrenchieCat]

90. Yep...you are missing a lot, Admiral Loinpresser

Surely, Clark never said that Saddam was a good guy.....so certainly, he understood him as a problem that needed to be dealt with, but he was advocating "containment" with force to be used as a last, last resort after all diplomatic solutions, including full UN inspections. Just as Clinton/Gore were bombing certain areas of Iraq's no fligh zone in 2000....Wes Clark did not believe that Saddam was 100% no threat whatsoever ever.

Where and how you would conclude Clark to have been "pro invasion" gives me doubts as to your understanding of "what's what" as you boost Al Gore.

In fact....your statement here on your findings on Clark's pre-war stance shines a light of minimal credibility that you have now brought upon yourself as you discuss Al Gore in the future. Intellectual dishonesty is not a "good" reputation to build on, and you could have been an effective spokesperson for Al Gore in the upcoming 3 years. At this point, it will be very difficult for me and other possible Clark supporters to take you seriously.

i.e., your strategy in your response to the myriad of evidence that I have presented you with may come back to bite you in the ass. :shrug:

But...by the way, what is Gore's position on the Iraq War now?
What was his position on 9/11 in the way that the Bush Admin approached it?
What was his ideas of what should have been done shortly after 9/11?
Has he met with Cindy Sheehan as of yet, and does he agree with her position?

I answered yours...so I hope you can do the same. Thanks! :hi:

[Admiral Loinpresser]

103. I'll deal with your new stuff, but...

first I am unsatisfied with your response. I'll quote from two paragraphs of General Clark's editorial:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

"The primary threat to American lives and interests around the world remains the terrorists of al-Qaeda. To be sure, in the last few weeks there have been important breakthroughs in the fight against terrorism. But we need to keep our eye on the ball, and as we extend our military operations into Iraq, we should do so in a way that advances the campaign against al-Qaeda and minimizes the risks of greater regional instability."

One major reason I opposed the war was precisely because American participation in such an invasion would INCREASE terrorism and empathy for Islamists among Muslim-fence sitters. It has done precisely that. So I do feel the ideas we could invade and yet fight terrorism effectively were essentially mutually exclusive.

"The answer to all these questions is yes, if we have the time. Well, we do. The key issue about Iraq has never been whether weshould act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions anddisarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace."

Again...if he was not in favor of invasion what does the phrase "This will only take a few more weeks" mean. Please address this. It sounds to me as if he was saying the following: Let's use diplomacy in the next few weeks to get a multilateral coalition and then invade.

Do you have a different interpretation of the "few weeks" remark? BTW, I absolutely deny your assertion of intellectual dishonesty and will rely on readers to judge. I am attempting to understand Clark's position based on his own words.

Now as to your questions:

1. What is Gore's position on the Iraq War now?

That this is one of the grossest blunders in American history. That by ideology we have come to an incredible setback in American interests and security. His last major speech on Iraq was right before the election, when he was actively campaigning for Kerry:

http://algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=84

His focus since the election has been climate change, rightly so, I think. It poses a greater security threat to the US than the terrible quagmire in Iraq. Iraq will devolve into an even worse situation, most likely, such as civil war, but will still not be as great a danger as global warming, which could possibly destroy our republic.


2. What was his position on 9/11 in the way that the Bush Admin approached it?

He has been more vocal in his criticism than any other Dem. While he supported the invasion of Afghanistan, he has often stated that we should have kept our resources focused on nation building there, to avoid the devolution to the traditional warlord environment which has returned in the wake of American neglect.

One reason he opposed the invasion in Iraq was because he opposed the conflating of 9/11 with Saddam, a la Cheney, Condi, etc.

3. What was his ideas of what should have been done shortly after 9/11?

I think that was addressed above. He has also said we should not have squandered the good will we had after 9/11. Again that goes back to Iraq.

4. Has he met with Cindy Sheehan as of yet, and does he agree with her position?

As far as I know he has not, nor has she requested it.

As to her position on Iraq, I know he agrees with her that the war was based on ideology and a pack of lies and distortion. I believe her position now is that we should get out. I assume (without a Gore speech to rely on) that he would agree with that in principle. In other words that we shouldn't maintain permanent military bases within Iraqi borders. As to the how and when of withdrawal, I wouldn't presume to guess on how Gore would do it. Like Cindy, I am a lay person and so the details of how to do it most effectively in terms of minimizing the loss of life, attempting to promote political stability in Iraq after withdrawal, etc, are very challenging indeed.

Finally, I hope you understand I'm not trying to flame about this. General Clark is a brilliant, very talented man and played an important role in the Clinton-Gore successes in the Balkans. But when Gore is criticized by Clark backers, I have to speak up. I have a real concern about the judgement of a guy who voted for Reagan. I just don't see any way to justify that. Can I forgive it if he heads the ticket in 2008? I guess if I can forgive Bobby Kennedy for working for Joe McCarthy in the 1950s I can forgive anything. But my heart will be with Gore till the day I die. Simply the greatest man of our age, IMO.

[FrenchieCat]

112. OK....

I'm not trying to flame about this. General Clark is a brilliant, very talented man and played an important role in the Clinton-Gore successes in the Balkans. But when Gore is criticized by Clark backers, I have to speak up.

The problem is that you are attempting to focus, not on the topic of the op as to the specific disatisfaction she detailed about Gore, but rather you are arguing a "general" pro-Gore position by attempting to discredit Clark as NOT being against this Invasion. So instead of responding to Op, by debating the issues she has raised.....you detract by talking against Clark instead of FOR Gore. The two approaches are not the same.

It's like saying because op said they didn't like Gore, I'm gonna say I don't like Clark's position on such and such. This doesn't provide a refutiation of the Gore point, it only adds criticism of Clark (one that is not substantiated at that). So I understand your frustration, but you would be better serve by defending Gore's position based on the OP rather than attacking Clark.

You see, no matter what, 100% of folks are not gonna agree that Gore is the better man....and OP was stating that was her position, and then gave reasons for position. That is OP's right....Your right is to refute reasons OP gave for Gore not being the politician of her choosing to head a 2008 ticket.

In reference to your points of discontent with Clark's pre-Iraq War position......The truth is very clear based on what has been posted that Gore and Clark's position on the War on Iraq were very similar, and occurred at approximately the same time; prior to the invasion.

Both believed that going into Iraq would detract from the greater more important goal of the War on Terror.

Both believed Saddam to be a dangerous man and a potential problem, but one which could be contained, and that IF there was going to be any talk of war, all diplomatic actions should be taken first; that an international coalition needed to be built via the UN; and that post war could become a liability....and they both correctly predicted a lot of what's happened in Iraq post war.

Both believe and both have said that Iraq was the biggest foreign policy strategic blunder ever made.

Both believed that a resolution should have been much narrower in scope than what was eventually voted on....and both said this prior to resolution being finalized.

That's why you have a problem in attempting to argue that Clark was for the invasion, and Gore was not. They had the same position...so your argument cannot hold. In fact, I am surprised on how similar Clark and Gore's positions were on Iraq. That's what I found out by dealing with your questions....more than anything.

In reference to 9/11, Clark had different views on the road that should have been pursued, post 9/11.....as he wrote this on 9/14:

A Long, Tough Job
By Wesley K. Clark
Friday, September 14, 2001; Page A37
The Washington Post
snip
For the United States, the weapons of this war should be information, law enforcement and, on rare occasions, active military forces. The coalition that will form around the United States and its NATO allies should agree on its intent but not trumpet its plans. No vast military deployments should be anticipated. But urgent measures should be taken behind the scenes, because the populations and economic structures of Western nations will be at risk.

And the American public will have to grasp and appreciate a new approach to warfare. Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex, interlocking network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings and facilities but the people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other terrorist attacks.
snip
Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies around the globe. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given shape and identity.

In some cases, astute police work will win the day, here and abroad. In other cases, international intelligence collaboration may be necessary. Special military forces may be called on to operate in states that are uncooperative or simply unable to control their own territory. In exceptional cases, targets will be developed that may be handled by conventional military strikes.
But in the main, this will be arduous, detailed and often covert work to track, detain or otherwise engage and "take down" our adversaries, rolling them up cell by cell and headquarters by headquarters.

Some will call for full disclosure and near-legal standards of evidence before acting. Others will arm a hair trigger, seeking to use the most readily available information, even if scant. But we must not pose legality and expediency as opposite extremes. To be expedient, we must act within the bounds of international law and consistent with consensus among the allied coalition that is emerging. And maintaining this consensus will be one of the prime challenges we face.
snip
We must strengthen our protective measures at airports, at utilities and other public service facilities such as communications networks, and prepare necessary public health and disease control capabilities for the possibility of nuclear and biological events. And if we are successful in preventing further attacks, another challenge will be to maintain our resolve.
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/usa_attack1.htm

I think it is important to know Gore's position on Iraq based on the current debate, and not the debate of pre 2004 election. Is it "Out immediately" or "change the direction with diplomacy as we get out".

What was Gore's position of Bombing in the no fly zones in Iraq when he was VP? Did he think that Saddam was somewhat of a threat....even if not an immediate one? That's what his words seem to indicate, but maybe not. Please advise.

Also note that Cindy Sheehan did not request a meeting with Wes Clark either. He met with her because that's what he did.

Also, what was Al Gore's position on Rwanda at the time that it was happening?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

141. Let's go point by point...

First let me note that I still haven't seen you address my earlier raised "few weeks" argument as to interpreting the title "Let's Wait to Attack." If you have addressed it, please advise.

Now as to your post immediately above:

As to dealing with the OP discussed in your first three paragraphs, actually I have done that. The essence of the OP argument was that Gore ran a "piss poor" campaign and that he ran away from the Clinton-Gore record. I rebutted both of those claims with empirical evidence elsewhere on this thread. Also, I have made the case for why Gore is an attractive candidate in 2008 elsewhere on this thread, rather than merely attacking Clark.

Next point, you said:

"The truth is very clear based on what has been posted that Gore and Clark's position on the War on Iraq were very similar, and occurred at approximately the same time; prior to the invasion."

I can't agree. While both correctly decried unilateralism, Gore went much further as I said in a previous post. He attacked Bush strategically on the doctrine of pre-emption and for politicizing the war. From what I have read provided on this thread (admittedly a limited, yet important data set) I have seen no evidence that Clark did either. Clark's editorial was entitled "Let's Wait to Attack." At the close of that CNN editorial, he made his "few weeks" comment about trying to build a coalition. The implication to me was he was in favor of invasion. Here's Clark:

"The primary threat to American lives and interests around the world remains the terrorists of al-Qaeda. To be sure, in the last few weeks there have been important breakthroughs in the fight against terrorism. But we need to keep our eye on the ball, and as we extend our military operations into Iraq, we should do so in a way that advances the campaign against al-Qaeda and minimizes the risks of greater regional instability."

Here's Gore:

"But that is a relatively minor issue compared to the longer-term consequences that can be foreseen for this doctrine. To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq if the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides."

Certainly it is possible to "cherry pick" quotes, but if you read the Gore speech in its entirety it's clear that he was against the invasion. You can make an argument for Clark, but so far I think the best reading of his editorial is that he approved of an invasion after weeks of diplomacy.

Your next point:

"Both believed that going into Iraq would detract from the greater more important goal of the War on Terror."

Based on Clark's quote above, I disagree.

Your next point:

"Both believed Saddam to be a dangerous man and a potential problem, but one which could be contained, and that IF there was going to be any talk of war, all diplomatic actions should be taken first; that an international coalition needed to be built via the UN; and that post war could become a liability....and they both correctly predicted a lot of what's happened in Iraq post war.

Both believe and both have said that Iraq was the biggest foreign policy strategic blunder ever made.

Both believed that a resolution should have been much narrower in scope than what was eventually voted on....and both said this prior to resolution being finalized.

That's why you have a problem in attempting to argue that Clark was for the invasion, and Gore was not. They had the same position...so your argument cannot hold. In fact, I am surprised on how similar Clark and Gore's positions were on Iraq. That's what I found out by dealing with your questions....more than anything."

Please, I beg you, what is your interpretation of the "few weeks" comment at the end of the CNN editorial? If he was not saying we should invade, why did he entitle it "Let's Wait to Attack?" My interpretation is consistent with the AP report that he supported a resolution to invade, based on his own statements. You have yet to state an interpretation.

Thank you for the statement from Clark in response to 9/11. I agree with much of what he said, but I disagree with what he said insofar as Afghanistan is concerned. He was not in favor of invasion in that editorial, whereas I think invasion was the appropriate response in that case. In fairness, he may have revised that position prior to the invasion. I assume he did.

Next point:

As to Gore's position on Iraq now, I don't know, sorry. Has Clark stated a position?

I honestly don't know Gore's position on the no-fly zones. He definitely considered Saddam a serious national security, as did everybody else with foreign policy credentials. His speech lists a lot of countries of concern.

I think that's to Clark's credit that he met with Sheehan, while HRC apparently is shirking her.

As to Rwanda, I don't know Gore's position. In the interest of intellectual honesty, I consider that a low point in the Clinton-Gore administration. But I don't know what the internal debate was like.

[FrenchieCat]

154. Let me ask you this?

You keep refering to this CNN article.

In that paragraph with the "next few weeks" that you are pinning as the identifier making Clark FOR the Invasion. Can I ask you if it is possible that the few more weeks Clark is talking about is in reference is to planning? Cause that's how I read it.

The reason is because of this statement in the same article....

there is a confusion and uncertainty among the American people about the need for war with Iraq, and especially about its urgency. This is understandable.

our national debate on Iraq has been upside down. The Administration announced its aim to change the regime in Baghdad before it made the case for action. To some, our government seemed to be seeking war as a preferred choice rather than as a last resort.

We need a real debate to gain the full and informed support of the American people as we move ahead.

The answer to all these questions is yes, if we have the time. Well, we do.http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

So please read the last paragraph again....

the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace.http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

[FrenchieCat]

157. Let me also ask you about Gore's February 12, 2002 speech

shortly after the State of the Union Address with the Axis of Evil and "Iraq better watch out" Bush speech.

Here's reports on Gore's speech dated Feb 12, 2002. What's up with that? :shrug:

Gore, Championing Bush, Calls for a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq

Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust President Saddam Hussein.
snip
Mr. Gore, speaking four miles from the ruins of the World Trade Center, applauded Mr. Bush for singling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address.
snip
In advocating that the administration consider whether the time had come to try to remove Mr. Hussein, Mr. Gore seemed to be in line with Mr.Bush's emerging policy.

But if Mr. Gore found himself on the same side as the White House about what to do now about Mr. Hussein, he was sharply critical of the way Mr. Bush's father had handled the matter during the 1991 war against Iraq. Mr. Gore noted that, back then, Mr. Hussein "was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade — and still do."

"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right," he said.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0213-01.htm

and this? Same speech coverage.....with more quotes....

“As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table,” Gore said.

“There is value in calling evil by its name. One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president of the United States.

“There is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.”--Al Gore
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/gore-f20.shtml

Here's the link to that speech in its entirity....and some choice excerpts
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=4343
The Axis of Evil
I also support the President's stated goals in the next phases of the war against terrorism as he laid them out in the State of the Union. What I want to talk about tonight are the fundamental, strategic questions before us as a nation. What are the next steps in the war against terrorism? And beyond immediate next steps, what is the longer-range plan of action? And finally, what should be done to deal with root causes of this threat?

Since the State of the Union, there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an “Axis of Evil.” As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name.
snip
if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.

In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/gore-f20.shtml

[drummo]

161. Re:"Let me also ask you about Gore's February 12, 2002 speech"

Some Reps tried this, too.

Then Timothy Noah came and explained the obvious:

Gore Is Consistent on Iraq
A close look at the evidence.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2002, at 3:52 PM PT

http://www.slate.com/id/2071500/

And here's another Noah article which retracts his claim that Gore
misrepresented his 1991 views on Iraq.

Al Gore Semi-Exonerated!
http://www.slate.com/id/2072479/

As for the Axis of Evil remark, what does that have to do with supporting or opposing the invasion of Iraq?

[FrenchieCat]

163. Sorry, I don't buy this....

Why this doesn't contradict Gore's Commonwealth Club speech: Because Gore's Council on Foreign Relations speech went on to say,

inishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.

The implication was that if these other things couldn't be done, the United States shouldn't go to war with Iraq.
--------------
Gore didn't know at the time what method would be used to go into a war in Iraq, and didn't know what we were gonna do.....he certainly didn't know in September of 2002, cause we still hadn't gone in.

Survival of Pakistan leader - That seems to be OK
Security of Saudi Arabia, Turkey? Why? But they seem secure
3rd one - No one wouldn't know exactly How the Bush Cartel would deal with this-Iraq not falling in Chaos. Gore certainly didn't know by the time he changed his position.
Important support within the present coalition - That one got fucked.

But my point is.....It appears that Gore was not Anti Iraq War...as long as it was done in a better way. So he wasn't against the invading Iraq....not really.

[drummo]

165. Re:Sorry, I don't buy this...."

Gore didn't know at the time what method would be used to go into a war in Iraq, and didn't know what we were gonna do.....he certainly didn't know in September of 2002, cause we still hadn't gone in.

What? Of course he knew it in Sept 2002 what Bush wanted to do. How can you say he didn't? I knew it myself. Anyone could know it who payed attention to them and read the draft resolution.
He did know in Sept 2002 that Bush failed to assemble any coalition that can be called multilateral. He knew that he was bullying the world therefore risking to lose " critically important support within the present coalition"
He knew that there was no "workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos". He knew that the draft resolution didn't even mention post-war reconstruction.
Bush in Sept 2002 was pushing for a unilateral invasion that provided no guarantee for anything that Gore mentioned in his Commonwealth speech.


BTW Noah forgets about something: Gore never proposed in the Commonwealth speech using military force to change the regime in Iraq. Let alone to invade it unilaterally.
That's a critical difference because we know Gore did say during the campaing that he would like to get rid of Saddam. Fuerth confirmed that, too. We also know that the Iraqi Liberation Act was not about invading Iraq but was about changing the regime by assisting the opposition.
Gore said in the CNN interview, soon after the Sept, 2002, that he thought there was potentional in the opposition. It was not hard to see that he would have continued the Clinton policy which was to contain Saddam while organizing opposition against him within Iraq.

The most dishonest element of the neocon push for this war was that they sold the idea that the only possible way to change the regime in Iraq was to invade the entire country. That's crap.

BTW you really do not understand why the security of Saudi Arabia and Turkey were imporntant? Then I can't help you. To me it's obvious.

Gore was against Bush's invasion of Iraq from the beginning and never supported his resolution for a unilateral invasion of the country.
He knew that Bush would screw it up without international support, without any plan what they would do after the regime falls and he knew that it would weaken not strenghten our ability to go after al Qaeda.
By contrast Clark supported Bush's invasion because his supported his resolution which Gore didn't. There is the difference.
And of course Gore did not flip-flop from "probably" to "never."

[FrenchieCat]

171. But evidently Gore didn't have a problem with Invading Iraq in

February 2002.

Your explanation is not sound.

And Clark didn't support the resolution anymore than Gore.

By September, it appears that Gore's position had morphed to resemble Clark's stance. Before, it appears that he didn't have a problem with invading Iraq. Maybe its because it was right after 9/11...and he was still thinking of running for President...and he needed to look tough. That's what I'm coming with. And yes, I'm pretty astute.

That said, Gore is still a wonderful man.

You forced me to do some research on Gore however. Thank you for that.

[drummo]

179. Gore did not propose military action against Iraq in Feb

"But evidently Gore didn't have a problem with Invading Iraq in"
Posted by FrenchieCat
February 2002.
Your explanation is not sound.

What is not sound in it? No international coalition, no post-war plan, no invasions. I think that's pretty obvious. It was certainly for Noah, me and Gore. and please don't tell me that Gore couldn't known those things in Sept 2002. I myself remember vividly how Rumsfeld bashed Old Europe.

Would you show any evidene from the Feb speech that proves Gore proposed or supported the use of any kind of military force against Iraq let alone a full scale invasion of the country?

He was talking about regime change in Iraq.
Just like Clinton in 1998. And Sandy Berger. And the Congress which passed the Iraqi Liberation Act. According to your logic everyone who voted for that bill somehow didn't have a problem with invading Iraq because they were promoting regime change in Iraq.

And Clark didn't support the resolution anymore than Gore.

Clark actually supported the resolution while Gore didn't. That's a pretty strinking difference in my view given the consequences.

Clark, even though as you yourself poited out, in Sept 2002 stated that force should not be used against Iraq unless every other effort fails. But on Oct 9, 2002 he somehow forgot about that
statement and didn't say boo about the language of the resolution which was the final draft and which was a blank check for war. Nothing less than that. Clark must have known that.
He should have said what Gore said, that the authority that was given to Bush by this resolution was way too broad and should be scaled back and that he cannot support the current language.
But he didn't say that. Morover later he said that "probably" he wouldn't have voted for it.
Then changed again and said "I would never have voted for it".
He can't have it both ways.

By September, it appears that Gore's position had morphed to resemble Clark's stance.

In what way? Clark was talking about the use of force in Sept even if as the last resort back then.
Gore never mentioned military force in his Feb speech.

Before, it appears that he didn't have a problem with invading Iraq.

Repeating this will not make it true. There is not a word in the Feb speech about invading Iraq.
So how can you know whether he had a problem with it or not?

Maybe its because it was right after 9/11...and he was still thinking of running for President...and he needed to look tough.

1.In Feb 2002 he had no idea whether he would run again or not. But that was true in Sept 2002, as well. He made up his mind in Dec 2002.

2.Everyone who were working around him in the Congress and then in the White House would confirm that Gore never played politics with national security. What does "looking tough" mean, anyway?

That's what I'm coming with.

But it's hard to see how you reached your conclusions.

[drummo]

135. Surely, Clark never said

that Saddam was a good guy.....so certainly, he understood him as a problem that needed to be dealt with, but he was advocating "containment" with force to be used as a last, last resort after all diplomatic solutions, including full UN inspections.

If that's what he really thought back in Oct 2002 why did he support the IWR? That was not about last resort. The language was clear as sky. When Bush decide to go to war he can go to war.
Again, either he was an idiot or totally blind not to see what the neocons were preparing for or he wanted to run for president and that's why he supported the IWR.

p.s. What does Al Gore have to do with Cindy Sheehan? Why Cindy Sheehan? Gore didn't kill his son. Why should he meet with her?

[FrenchieCat]

138. You need to re-read the entire thread.....

cause you are missing some things. If you are gonna post in a thread, the least that you could do is read it. No, Clark was not for a resolution as it ended up. Sorry to disappoint your theory.

In reference to Cindy Sheehan, I asked had if Gore met with her. I wanted to know, if you don't mind.

Are you poo-pooing that this wasn't even a question that I should ask? Considering that she is the current discussion all over this board as well as many other progressive sites, I beg your pardon!

[CarolNYC]

94. apparently....

Did you read his 2002 testimony? And all of the other stuff Frenchie referenced in that post?

How about the salon interview, found here:
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/

Thanks!

[drummo]

143. Yes I did read it.

And I also read what he said on Oct 9.
And it's irrelevant what he said in his testimony back in Sept since he did not follow up on that when it came to the vote on the actual resolution. He said that he supported it, he said that while he knew what the language was.

The salon interview is irrelevant since it was made after the resolution passed and after the war started.

Clark was either too stupid/naive to see what the neocons wanted to do and why they were asking Congress to approve a blank check for war, or as I believe it happened, he wanted to have it both ways because he wanted to run for president.

[FrenchieCat]

97. Here's Al Gore's speech from September 23, 2002

Please let me know what Al Gore is advocating here, and how it is different from Clark's prewar position......
Inquiring Clarkie minds want to know! :hi:

I believe that we are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.
snip
Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does indeed pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. raq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
snip
Indeed, should we decide to proceed, our action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than requiring us to go outside the framework of international law. In fact, even though a new United Nations resolution might be helpful in the effort to forge an international consensus, I think it's abundantly clear that the existing U.N. resolutions passed 11 years ago are completely sufficient from a legal standpoint so long as it is clear that Saddam Hussein is in breach of the agreements made at the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War.
snip
Back in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration's hasty departure from the battlefield, even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the south - groups that we had after all encouraged to rise up against Saddam.
snip
Here's another of the main points I want to make. If we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth-rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation, as President Bush has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth-rate military power there, then the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. Here's why I say that; we know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country.
snip
The president should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and, therefore, a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the president to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open. In any event, the president should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action.
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

[Crunchy Frog]

105. Thank you for posting that Frenchie.

I hadn't seen it before and find it pretty interesting.

[drummo]

251. What is so interesting about it?

Gore wanted to get rid of Saddam ever since 1991 when he urged Bush to support the Shiite-Kurd upsiring. Moreover the Clinton administration used force against Iraq regurarly. That alone was no big secret and in all likelyhood would have continued under a Gore administration.
He said several times in 2002 that Saddam is a bad guy who should be removed from power. He made it clear during the campaign that Saddam should be finished. But who didn't want regime change in Iraq? After 1998 it was offical US policy. The ILA passed both houses with large majority.
It seems to me that thanks to Bush's invasion most people confuse regime change in Iraq with the invasion of Iraq. Gore didn't. Nor did I. Nor did those who voted for ILA.
The question is whether he wanted to invade Iraq or whether he supported anyone who promoted the invasion of Iraq.

And the answer to that is clearly no. Of course you would not support it when you know there are better ways to achieve regime change.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

113. Nuance versus simplicity...

Have you read Gore's entire speech? If so, you are then aware that Clark and Gore are dealing with some of the same issues, but Gore goes much further.

The short answer is that Gore was advocating AGAINST the IWR as it stood, whereas Clark apparently was advocating FOR it, although I admit that is based on his "few weeks" statement, as well as the title of his editorial "Let's Wait to Attack."

Here's what Gore said at the beginning of his speech:

"I'm speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country which I believe would be preferable to the course recommended by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

It is true that Gore and Clark both stressed the need for multilateralism. That is a common sense approach that escaped the ideologically driven neo-cons. But Gore went much further. He undeniably attacked the "Doctrine of Pre-emption" advocated by Bush:

"What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States."

"But that is a relatively minor issue compared to the longer-term consequences that can be foreseen for this doctrine. To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq if the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides."

He criticized the overall strategy of invasion as damaging our interests:

"It is more important to note the consequences of an emerging national strategy that not only celebrates American strengths, but appears to be glorifying the notion of dominance. If what America represents to the world is leadership in a commonwealth of equals, then our friends are legion; if what we represent to the world is empire, then it is our enemies who will be legion."

He also warned of Bush's ADD tendency in foreign policy:

"Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam."

Although we kept troops there, we did effectively abandon Iraq in terms of reconstruction as Naomi Klein and others have reported, so Gore's warning was prescient.

He also warned of the dangers of a slap-dash regime change:

"Neither has the Administration said much to clarify its idea of what is to follow regime change or of the degree of engagement it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place."

He also said bluntly that Bush was politicizing the war more than once in the speech. Here's an example:

"President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election. Rather than making efforts to dispel concern at home an abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the President is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a "no" vote - - even as the Republican National Committee runs pre-packaged advertising based on the same theme - - in keeping with the political strategy clearly described in a White House aide's misplaced computer disk, which advised Republican operatives that their principal game plan for success in the election a few weeks away was to "focus on the war.""

So my assessment based on the words of these two men in 2002 was that Gore was criticizing Bush's methodology, but more importantly stressing that invasion was a strategic blunder. Clark on the other hand, IMO, was not disputing the idea of invasion, only the how and the when.

[CarolNYC]

115. Hey,

did you read more than that one article yet? Or are you not going to?

Thanks!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

142. I read everything supplied except the Salon link...

I couldn't get access to the whole article.

[CarolNYC]

167. Admiral, you're funny....

All you have to do to access the full article if you don't have an account is watch a :30 commercial.....Could you not figure out how to do it...or did you not have the extra :30 it would have taken to watch it? If you couldn't figure it out, it's really really easy. Just click on the free day pass or whatever it says icon, watch the commercial and you'll be taken to the full interview....Any time you want to read something on salon premium you can do that...It gives you a pass for a whole day, I think.

So, did you read the testimony? Or no, because I don't think I provided a link...It's really easy to google, but in case you can't find it, here's a link:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

And, I'm not trying to fight with you either, OK? I think both Gore and Clark are good Americans and worlds above what we've got in the White House now, OK? Just trying to give you some info that you seem to be lacking.

Be well....

[drummo]

252. Unfortunately Clark managed to contradict his own

testimony on Oct 9 when he said he would vote for a resolution that would give the authority to Bush to use force. In Sept he said that was not needed. Why did he think on Oct 9 that it was needed?

And later he couldn't really figure out how he would have voted on the final resolution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2121094&mesg_id=2127410

Have you ever heard Gore say "probably I would have voted for it"
or that "I don't know if I would have or not"? Why couldn't Clark make up his mind about the resolution long after it was passed?

Remember that Gore wasn't in the Congress ,either. So Clark's exuse that he didn't know what was in the resolution is pretty, well, lame.

[FrenchieCat]

129. I think that their stance were pretty much identical.....

Even if the venues were different....

IF you were to read Clark's testimonies that he gave to both Halls of congress, and compare them to Gore's political speech prepared for a specific audience....Clark testifying with no notes, AND answering questions asked of him by both Republicans and Democrats, he and Gore are still saying pretty much the same thing.

Clark's words were meant to discourage a war to a body that would have to vote on it...
Gore's words given as a speech to a commonwealth forum and was then considered the Democrats'logical opposition to Bush...as Gore had just run against the guy, and was the last democratic nominee.

Gore's task in that speech was to discredit Bush and well as Bush's policy.....

That's what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. You want to match Clark word by word to Gore....when they were speaking in different venues for slightly different purposes. Gore was being the partisan that he was expected to be....Clark was the military expert giving his view as to why time was on our side, and there was no need to rush to war.

You should read Clark's full testimonies sometime. He does talk about the Elective/pre-emptive doctrine that became knows as the Bush doctrine, and he didn't feel it required or applicable to Iraq.

All in all, they had the same position.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

144. So was the AP article saying he supported the IWR

misreporting? If so, did Clark correct the record? Based on what I have read today, it seems that the common wisdom is correct, i.e. that Clark supported the invasion beforehand, then revised his position afterward.

I'm sure you will disagree. When doing so, please address my "few weeks" argument with an alternative interpretation.

[FrenchieCat]

158. But what about this stuff here? Can you explain it to me?

shortly after the State of the Union Address with the Axis of Evil and "Iraq better watch out" Bush speech.

Here's reports on Gore's speech dated Feb 12, 2002. What's up with that? :shrug:

Gore, Championing Bush, Calls for a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq

Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust President Saddam Hussein.
snip
Mr. Gore, speaking four miles from the ruins of the World Trade Center, applauded Mr. Bush for singling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address.
snip
In advocating that the administration consider whether the time had come to try to remove Mr. Hussein, Mr. Gore seemed to be in line with Mr.Bush's emerging policy.

But if Mr. Gore found himself on the same side as the White House about what to do now about Mr. Hussein, he was sharply critical of the way Mr. Bush's father had handled the matter during the 1991 war against Iraq. Mr. Gore noted that, back then, Mr. Hussein "was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade — and still do."

"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right," he said.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0213-01.htm

and this? Same speech coverage.....with more quotes....

“As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table,” Gore said.

“There is value in calling evil by its name. One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president of the United States.

“There is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.”--Al Gore
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/gore-f20.shtml

Here's the link to that speech in its entirity....and some choice excerpts
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=4343
The Axis of Evil
I also support the President's stated goals in the next phases of the war against terrorism as he laid them out in the State of the Union. What I want to talk about tonight are the fundamental, strategic questions before us as a nation. What are the next steps in the war against terrorism? And beyond immediate next steps, what is the longer-range plan of action? And finally, what should be done to deal with root causes of this threat?

Since the State of the Union, there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an “Axis of Evil.” As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name.
snip
if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.

In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/gore-f20.shtml

[CarolNYC]

170. hmmm....

Interesting Frenchie...

[Admiral Loinpresser]

186. "Al, what have we learned today?"

We learned today that:

1. That Gore gave a speech in February 2002 open to the idea of a policy of regime change in Iraq, in response to Bush's state of the union address in January, but acknowledging the warning signs of the administration's inability to implement an effective policy.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=4343

2. That in September 2002, when faced with a concrete IWR, Gore opposed the war, based in large part on the reservations he expressed in February (unilateralism, "hubris," politicization of the war, etc.).

http://www.slate.com/id/2071500

3. That Clark supported the IWR, including endorsing a pro-war congressional Dem candidate in New Hampshire.

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/october2002/10_09_02.shtml

Stephen Frothingham, “Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns about Iraq,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire 9 Oct. 2002.

4. That since September 2002, Gore has consistently opposed the invasion.

5. That since September 2002, Clark has been all over the map regarding Iraq and has engaged in revisionism on his pre-invasion position.

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

6. That Clarkies will engage in Olympic-grade mental gymnastics to pretend that Clark opposed the invasion and when confronted with the facts will throw up dust to change the subject.

(see this thread)

"That's what we have learned today, Katherine."

[CarolNYC]

200. Here's what I learned...

There’s a couple of people on this thread who have a big fat bug up their butt about Clark and it’s going to take more than me or Clark’s words or reasoned discussion to get it out. Fair enough. Clark’s testimony and his statements and his articles are out there for people to read and figure out for themselves.

What I do know is that, at a time when I felt like I was in some kind of black hole, when it seemed that everyone I looked up to was silent for fear of being labeled unpatriotic, when all dissent seemed to be successfully squashed in the run-up to the war, I heard a General saying what I’d so wish to hear others say. I’d marched (for the first time ever in a protest of any kind) in an anti-war demonstration. I’d called my senators (for the first time ever) pleading with them to not back the resolution. It seemed like no one was listening to me. I’d just about lost hope. And then there was suddenly a light at the end of the tunnel for me. It was like a hand reaching out in the darkness saying you’re not alone. I believe Michael Moore had the same experience when, at a time when no one would stand up for him, when he felt isolated and most alone, the support came from what he felt was the unlikeliest of places.

Go ahead, rip into Clark, if you must. I certainly can’t stop you. I’d hoped to have a fair discussion with you on the matter but it seems not possible.

As for the actual topic of this thread, that scene in F911 was totally heartbreaking to me. I still can’t get the image of those brave souls being left to swing in the wind alone, in the interest, I guess, of “bringing the country together”. Who cares if a pile of black voters get disenfranchised in the process, right? :( I don’t just blame Gore for that, though. There were calls all over the place for us to heal, etc, etc…..I do blame him for not asking that the whole state of Florida’s votes be recounted, rather than just certain counties. I think that was a definite mistake and I thought so at the time. I also think that, had Gore been installed after elected, this country and this world would be in hell of a lot better shape now than it is and, perhaps, General Clark would be enjoying a private life away from politics.

BTW, did you figure out how to use the one day salon.com pass yet, or no? Did you read Clark’s 2002 testimony, or no?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

201. OK, we can agree to disagree,

but as to the statement:

There’s a couple of people on this thread who have a big fat bug up their butt about Clark and it’s going to take more than me or Clark’s words or reasoned discussion to get it out.

I certainly am not in that category. I've never started a Clark-bashing thread nor do I have any inclination to do so. Gore has a lot of juice right now and I believe history is on his side. That's what I'm all about.

I started in on this thread with an open mind about Clark's pre-invasion position. I discovered substantial evidence (cited in my post above) that he supported the invasion and then engaged in revisionism a year later when it was politically expedient. I don't say that to hurt you, I honestly believe it.

I applaud and share your anti-war sentiment. That is one reason I back Gore enthusiastically. Immediately before the IWR he took a strong anti-war stand and has never wavered.

As to Michael Moore, I admire some of the things he does but consider him easily duped, e.g. his backing of the demagoguery and lies of Nader in 2000. To this day he won't honestly admit how profoundly wrong he was about that. He had a chance to apologize personally to Gore on the Al Franken show (at Franken's urging) yet continued to defensively equivocate in a way that speaks to his intellectual honesty.

I like much of what Clark does. As I said before, he is talented, has impressive experience and may well be an asset to the party. But I am truthful about what I consider Gore's weaknesses and I encourage others to be realistic about their candidate of choice.

BTW, I did not and probably will not read all of his congressional testimony. And with that I think I can say I have attempted to honestly answer every question you have posed. Readers can review the thread to see whether all of my questions have been answered. I am confident they have not been. I don't say that with animosity, but rather because if the debate is to be one of "reasoned discussion," as you called for, then all questions should be answered on both sides.

[drummo]

169. Re:All in all, they had the same position.

Not at all. They had completely different positions which now
in Clark's case, you want to paint in a better light than it actually was because the war turned out to be a disaster which Clark either didn't see or didn't care about.

Clark supported Bush's resolution as it was finalized by the Congress. That's a fact. Clark never said what exactly should be changed in the draft -- unlike Gore -- even though previously he stated in his testimony that he would authorize force but only after everything else failed. If that's what he thought not just in Sept 2002 but also on Oct 9, 2002 why didn't he pick the resolution apart like Gore did in Sept 23? Why didn't he say this and this and that should be changed? He just accepted the whole thing and said he supports it and would advise her to vote for it.
Then he later said he wouldn't have voted for the resolution. Now which one was true?

What you say that Gore's task was to discredit Bush and well as Bush's policy is greatly misleading.
Gore's purpose was to warn everyone who listened that the resolution as it was presented by Bush , if passed, would lead to disaster. Clark, if he had wanted to do the same he had the chance but he failed. He never opposed the resolution, quite to the contrary.
And the Reps sure accused Gore of being partisan but Gore did not consider this a partisan issue but a national security issue. Surely he didn't benefit politically by making that speech when more than 60% of the country supported the war against Iraq.

[drummo]

116. Aha. And he said he supported the resolution.

Clark knew that the deployment was well underway in Oct 2002. He knew the intention of the neocons and they long held dream of invading Iraq. He knew that the resolution was a blank check for war. If he opposed it from the beginning why did he support the resolution with its ORIGINAL language? Couldn't he add 1 and 1 together? Or he wanted to run for president and thought it would be far more convenient to have himself on the record saying that he supported the resolution.
Did he think he could have it both ways?

Clark played a double-game. That resolution was the key. That was the one which strated the war because without it Bush couldn't have done it. Everyone knew it was a blank check. No spinning will change that.Clark fully understood that -- and if not then he is a idiot.
He still did not urge those in the Congress to reject it, like Gore did for example.

End of story.

[CarolNYC]

126. the resolution

Clark's position on the IWR has been beaten to death time and time again....Maybe someone else wants to debate it yet again but I don't.

Have you read Clark's 2002 testimony, tho? The testimony that caused Richard Perle to conclude:

"So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

He seems to have helped convince Wellstone to vote against the resolution anyway....

BTW, from the tone of your posts, it sounds as though you're looking for a fight. I'm afraid I will disappoint you, because I am not.

Have a good day. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

132. I don't even think that poster Drummo even read what I posted

in this here thread about Clark's resolution stance with was for a narrower resolution....not a blank check.

The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail.

and again in another part of his testimony

Such congressional resolution need not, at this point, authorize the use of force. The more focused the resolution on Iraq, the more focused it is on the problems of weapons of mass destruction. The greater its utility in the United Nations, the more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its utility is, the greater its impact is on the diplomatic efforts under way
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm#WC

Too bad....but maybe ignorance is blissed!

[drummo]

139. I did read Clark's 2002 testimony

Clark's September 26, 2002 testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail..

So apparently he thought that the appropriate point to authorize the use of force was Oct 9, 2002 when he said this

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq,

Flip-flop flip-flop

The rest is pure spin. Because the language was NOT changed. And Clark knew it. If he had been consistent he would have said that I cannot support this resolution because this is a blank check for war.
Gore wanted to change the language and when it was not he said that I wouldn't have vote for it.
Clark cannot claim the same.

Following your logic every single Dem in the Congress could have supported the resolution and still claim today that they opposed the war in case they said at one point of time that the resolution should include "last resort" language.

Which would be of course nonsense.

[FrenchieCat]

146. Again......you are incorrect.

The resolution was not final on October 9th. The final resolution was voted on on October 11th.

Just because an AP reporter wrote what he did, doesn't mean that is what Clark actually said. Same AP reporter stated that Clark also said "after vigorous debate"...so why would Clark have said that if he was gung Ho for the resolution?

Clark supported "A" resolution, but not the one that gave Bush a blank check.

The Senators who voted for the resolution did so knowing full well was it meant on October 11th. Clark didn't vote...so for you to him in the same place is stoopid.

Just sayin' that the spinning is coming from you aisle and you are using AP minions to prop up your theory. Be wary of them, as the object of your admiration may be next to be deliberately misquoted.

[drummo]

232. I didn't say that the vote was on Oct 9.

The resolution was not final on October 9th. The final resolution was voted on on October 11th.

But because the language of the resolution on Oct 9 did not change during those two days it is accurate to say that that resolution was the final draft. What you got on Oct 9 was exactly what you got on Oct 11.

Just because an AP reporter wrote what he did, doesn't mean that is what Clark actually said.

It was not just an AP reporter but James Pindell, the NYT, Globe, interview on CNN etc. And Pindell quoted Clark on Oct 9:

"Certainly in certain cases we should go to war before our enemies strike, and I think this situation applies here, but I am not sure we should write it down and publish it as policy," Clark said.

That's an obvious statement.

Same AP reporter stated that Clark also said "after vigorous debate".

Yes but that's irrelevant since you couldn't have prevented the war by just having a vigorous debate. You had to oppose the resolution. The only thing that mattered is that the resolution which existed on Oct 9 was a blank check for war. You either opposed it or wanted to change it. Clark never said that the language should be changed let alone how so that it would not be a greenlight for war.

so why would Clark have said that if he was gung Ho for the resolution?

Gung Ho or not he said he supported it. That in my world is an unambiguos statement.
The intensity of his support is impossible to determine but it doesn't matter.
If he didn't like the language why didn't he say how it should be changed, like Gore did?

Clark supported "A" resolution, but not the one that gave Bush a blank check.

So you say that Clark didn't even read it? He didn't know what was in the resolution that was on the table on Oct 9. That would be a literally unbelievable explanation and would show that Clark really didn't care about the issue -- just like Bush didn't care about al Qaeda so he didn't read a single book about terrorism. Which I don't believe.

The Senators who voted for the resolution did so knowing full well was it meant on October 11th. Clark didn't vote...so for you to him in the same place is stoopid.

Stupid? Then everyone who said I would not vote for it but were not in the Congress was stupid? Including Gore? He was not in the Congress, either. Still he said he would not vote for it.
You don't have to be in the Senate to know whether you support or oppose a resolution. You have to read it and make a decision, that's it.

Just sayin' that the spinning is coming from you aisle and you are using AP minions to prop up your theory.

The Fackcheck article referred to many different sources not just AP.
And you have not proven that that particular AP report was not true. One thing is sure:
James W. Pindell reported the same as AP did. He too is just a minion?

It is not just a theory. Clark said what he said. And someone who was against that resolution wouldn't have said that he would advise someone to vote for it. I think that's obvious.


Be wary of them, as the object of your admiration may be next to be deliberately misquoted.


I certainly know something about that. And I would be the last person to trust the press just because they say something. But the misquotes the press put to Gore's mouth have been discredited one by one.

The quotes from Clark have not been discredited, so far.

[drummo]

184. These are indeed facts

The fact is that Gore's campaign gained about 20 points in 18 months. How can a "piss-poor" campaign do that? How can a bad campaign win an election?

You know, I notice this is always the question the Gore-campaign bashers cannot answer.

Never.

It's a fact and it totally discredits the media spin that he ran a bad campaign.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Wordie]

48. I've been saying it's too early to talk about '08, but sadly cannot resist

The question may be, do we need a good President as President, or do we need a good campaigner as President (as everyone will agree GWB is). This in general may be the problem with U.S. politics.

Enough said.

[Jai4WKC08]

76. We need both

The first and foremost prerequisite to all else should be that the man or woman is qualified to hold the office. But once that much is established, he or she must win the office first.

Which is more important, the engine or the spark plugs? Car won't run without both.

So yeah, you're right. It undoubtedly is one of if not THE biggest problems with U.S. politics. But it's a fact of life we have to live with.

I know so many people who went for Kerry over Clark (or Dean or Edwards) solely because they thought Kerry had a better chance of winning, not because they thought he'd make the better president. And there's no doubt in my mind that Kerry would have been a very good president, if not the best, and infinitely better than Bush, so who's to say they were wrong?

My only point being that, while ABB will not be a factor in '08, the electability "thing" will still be an issue with the Democratic rank & file. It's something we need to think about.

[Wordie]

93. I guess I was focusing on GWB, who is a master salesman (huckster?),

but as President, stinks.

Yes, you're right, we do need both. Even after an election, there has to be a bit of that salesmanship thing to get people's attention and support.

It sadly may be that the sort of person who has the ability for in-depth analysis and policy-formation regarding the issues, may just not have the salesman type of personality (Bill Clinton being a notable exception, although still not all one would wish for).

It really is too early to be focusing on this now. Who knows what the next couple of years may bring. Yet, like armchair politicos everywhere, I suppose, I find it hard to resist these threads. I suppose those who are planning to run really do need to be planning a strategy now, so...oh well. Let the horserace begin!

[jbnow]

50. I'd like to see him in action

Gore made mistakes in his campaign and came across as wooden, unreal.

But Gore was in politics since childhood really. In 2000 he was still caught up then in being a proper politician. I think now he cares more about being a good leader, about America having a strong leader who cares.

I'm not saying he didn't care back in 2000, I think he has always cared. But time out of the game of politics might have freed him to be and show himself.

If he enters the race it won't take long to see if he has changed.

[stickdog]

51. That's WAY too much.

I'm not in love with Gore, but the idea that a Clark supporter would use a single action out of ancient history to disqualify their support of someone else is highly amusing.

[Jai4WKC08]

53. "A single action out of ancient history"?

LOL. You must not have read the OP.

[ladylibertee]

52. Al Bore not for me either. EDWARDS 2008 !!!!

[drummo]

253. Gore is not boring. But Edwards is.

Name one thing that is interesting in him. He hasn't produced a single original idea.

[Larkspur]

55. Wes Clark and the pro-war Dems are not for me

Clark is a political opportunist and faux-Dem who gave a speech at a Republican fundraiser in 2001. He has no elected civilian political experience and instead of building a resume as a Democrat in elected civilian political office, he has taken the easy route of being a talking head on Faux News.

I will not vote for Clark or any pro-war Dem in 2008 if they lead the Dem Prez ticket.

[Adelante]

59. Lies

All the time, lies.

[xkenx]

148. YOU EITHER DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, OR

you are just here to gratuitously attack Wes Clark in the hopes that someone will believe you.

I BELIEVE IN THE "DUCK PRINCIPLE. "Ducks don't wear signs labeling them ducks. If it has a ducksbill, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then you know it's a duck.

Wes Clark is one of the Democratic Party's foremost progressives by virtue of his actions over the years, not by any labels that people want to throw at him simply because he had a career in the military.
It is time to appreciate just how lucky we are to have this national treasure. Just a few items:

--Clark was always butting heads with the stereotypical "macho" military Neanderthals because he saw the horrors of war firsthand in Vietnam and always espoused "diplomacy first."
--Clark was one of the leaders of the all-volunteer Army created after the Vietnam debacle. To keep personnel in you had to do a good job of providing for their family needs, health, education, equal opportunity.
--Clark actually won environmental awards at bases under his command.
--When Clark was working at the Pentagon in the mid-90s, he was virtually the only voice crying out to intervene in Rwanda.
--It was Clark's voice, along with Madeline Albright, who persuaded the Clinton Admin., over the objections of the Pentagon, to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Tell the Kosovar Albanians that Wes Clark isn't a liberal, progressive, humanitarian.
--It was Wes Clark's voice prior to the Iraq invasion who urged that we exhaust all possible diplomatic means before any military action, including in testimony to Congress. The same session when Neocon Richard Perle testified that Wes Clark was doing everything possible to avoid confronting Saddam Hussein.
--It was Wes Clark who filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the University
of Michigan affirmative action case.

Since when is it some kind of a black mark for someone to give to his country by serving in the military if he does so in a principled manner? Wes Clark felt that he could make the most impact by providing a progressive voice to that institution.

As for voting for Nixon and Reagan, he did so 20-30 years ago, simply because he felt they were strong on national security. Clark discovered that the modern Republican Party is so different they wouldn't have Nixon, and maybe not even Reagan. Clark evolved to where he started voting for Democrats, and then officially registering as a Democrat after registering as Independent for many years. Reagan WAS a democrat prior to running for Gov. of California. Are any Democrats wanting to say that Reagan, in his later years was a Democrat, simply because he started out that way?

So I'd have to say Wes Clark is my Democrat, liberal, progressive "DUCK" because he has proved it.

[Name removed]

218. Deleted message

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

[JNelson6563]

60. Considering

Wes Clark's name is incorporated into your screen name I'd say it's a good bet you could probably put up pretty verbose posts against anyone but Clark. I don't mean that as a criticism, just an observation, I don't care who you support/don't support.

On the subject matter of your post, I think Gore truly believed that in ending the stand off in 2000 he was helping to heal the country, how could he possibly have known how wrong that idea was? I don't think anyone could've accurately predicted the horrors that would happen. I think he has lived to regret this more than any of us and his subsequent speeches certainly indicate this to be true.

I'm disappointed to see the way you chose to make your point, seems to me almost as though you're in a hurry to get us back in to the horrible days of the primary season. I hope that's not the case, those were dark days here at DU. We need to get together and try to heal our divisions.

Julie

[Jai4WKC08]

73. OP raises important questions

That shouldn't be woofed away with accusations that the poster is simply denigrating the competition to her own guy, or worse yet, trying to start up the flame wars of the '04 primaries. That's reallly below you, JN.

As far as what happened after election day 2000, I happen to agree with you that Gore probably thought he was doing the right thing at the time. Doesn't mean it was the right thing tho, so it still reflects poorly on his judgment. But I'll admit I wasn't smart enough to see it differently at the time either.

That said, plenty of others did, including some of Gore's most loyal constituents, so I don't agree with your "how could he possibly have known..." (a phrase we've heard all too frequently of late). It can't be that ending his fight was the only obvious course of action open to him, when folks like Conyers and Waters were begging him to do more. If nothing else, he could have made enough noise to get something going for election reform (you know, while we still controlled the Senate?) and we might be four years closer to getting it.

But in spite of all that, my personal concerns lie more with the lousy campaign Gore ran before the ballots were counted. I see absolutely no reason to believe he'd do any better next time. But IF he decides to run, then we shall see if he's really learned anything. I just don't see why we should assume so beforehand.

It also bothers me a GREAT deal that Gore has not come out in any way (as far as I know--I've asked this question on a couple of different threads and not gotten an answer) on what we should do in Iraq. I consider this one of the most important issues of the day. How we handle it as a party may make all the difference in how many congressional seats we win in '06.

I don't understand how anyone who sees himself as a Democratic leader at the national level, whether he plans to run for office or not, can not have an opinion or see the need to stand up and be counted.

It's not bashing Gore to ask where he stands, and question why he hasn't told us.

[JNelson6563]

77. I would wager that's been learned about too

No doubt Gore was on the outside looking in re: the Kerry campaign last year. He know doubt saw evenmore clearly than many of us how badly Kerry dropped the ball. If anything that had to help him realize the error of his own ways back in 2000.

I addressed some of the substance in the OP, demostrating I too thought there were some worthwhile questions. I certainly didn't make "accusations that the poster is simply denigrating the competition to her own guy", I stated I bet she'd feel that way about anyone but her already-chosen candidate. Even those favored more than Gore will likely never be better than her candidate for whatever reason. And yeah, I thought if the OP was really intended to lead to a productive discussion, it coulda maybe been a little less confrontational and it did remind me of the horrible nightmare we refer to as "the primaries".

Sorry to see these views offend you.

Cheers,
Julie

[Crunchy Frog]

209. Doesn't matter what her username is.

She has as much right as anybody else on this board to ask questions and express opinions. If you object to it, maybe you shouldn't read it. There's a perfectly good ignore button.

[JNelson6563]

247. Did I try to silence anyone?

No, I simply stated an observation that would be evident to anyone who can see clearly. When one idolizes someone to the point they work their name into their own that's rather telling, no? Imagine if my chosen screen-name was FeingoldFan. Would you be surprised to see me post negative opinions on anyone else who might run for office against him? Would you expect anything different?

It indicates a strong bias. Period. I don't care if that person posts about it all day long, post away. To note their transparency is not a crime nor is it against DU rules.

If you don't like it there is a perfectly good ignore button. :toast:

Julie

[ArkDem]

63. Plus, Wes Clark is soooooo dreamy....

[Adelante]

64. Haha - nice try

Doesn't work.

[ArkDem]

128. What doesn't work???

[smartvoter]

71. As my wife would say to keep my perspective clear: Gore won. nt

[WA98296]

81. Thanks! Well stated and BTW I agree

Nice guy, blew it, his chance came and went.

[drummo]

82. Re:It was about the goddamned voters.

Bullshit.

It wouldn't have been about the voters but about pure anger over what happened in Florida. Boxer -- and I don't believe her but let's say she tells the truth -- couldn't have made a damn difference. So what does she regret now? Bush would have become president, only after a little bit more mess.
Boxer's vote wouldn't have done a damn thing for the voters. It wouldn't have counted a single more vote and wouldn't have changed the result.


And just because you liked Clinton in 2000 does not mean that everyone else did. Gore would have lost big time if he had not distanced himself from your Don Juah. Clinton had a 40% personal approval rating or worse in the red states. They disdained him even if they approved the job he was doing -- which was purely because of the good economy nothing else, which by the way started down in March 2000, hurting Gore's chances. That's what you and the Dem establishment calls advantage, I guess.
Newsflash: a slowing economy is never an advantage.

And Clinton deserved what he got. He should have resigned. Period. Lied under oath, that's against the law, clear-cut case. He should have let Gore become president and then now you wouldn't have the opportunity to say stupid things like he should have run on the Clinton/Gore record. Yeah. That would have been the silver bullet.
Running on the so-called Clinton/Gore record. There was no such thing. There was only Clinton record and Gore record, two different things.
They came from different background, they had very different histories, different achievement and different agendas. If Clinton had the right to run on his own in 1992 Gore had the same right in 2000.

You don't have any evidence but you sure fell in love with your theories. How can you prove that by "running on the Clinton/Gore record" -- whatever that means -- would have given Gore any more states that he won anyway? You can't prove it. So what's your point?

Gore ran a reasonable, serious, issue-oriented campaign against all odds and he was right on virtually everything. That's what a piss poor campaign is in your world. You are right and you are running a bad campaign. Duh!
Little contradiction there.

The problem is with you not with Gore's campaign. You just repeat what you heard from the talking heads on TV, the conventional wisdom, instead of doing your own research and thinking for yourself.

[Jai4WKC08]

108. Bullshit backatcha

It's exactly about the goddamn voters. People who went out of their way, some with great hardship or risk, deserve having the guy they endured it for to stand up for their rights.

Would it have changed the outcome in 2000? No, almost certainly not.

Could a little more noise have opened people's eyes to the need for election reform? Quite possibly. And we might be four years closer to getting it.

Most important, would it have been the right thing to do? Absolutely.

And don't tell us about what we heard from the talking heads. We were there, and every bit as capable of seeing thru their games as you are. We watched the debates. We read the issue papers. We listened to the speeches. We heard the right-wing turn Gore into a liar and a joke, and never heard a word from him to refute it, never saw him take the offense against a druggie draft-dodger whose daddy bailed him out of failure after failure.

Did the talking heads do the dirty work of the Repub noise machine? Of course. Do you expect them to do anything different in 2008? Don't hold your breath.

Give us someone who will AT LEAST go down fighting, not positioning for the next time around.

Sigh... now you got me more pissed off about this than I want to be. Like I've said repeatedly, I do like Al Gore. But let's not re-write history, shall we? Or tell anyone who raises valid issues that they're dupes of the GOP?

[desi826]

180. Hold on

"Bullshit backatcha It's exactly about the goddamn voters. People who went out of their way, some with great hardship or risk, deserve having the guy they endured it for to stand up for their rights."

Hold on. Don't use us to make your point.
I noticed a african american guy earlier in the thread trying to explain it to you. We didn't have to "love" Al Gore(though I did and still do), we just "got" him.

For the most part, we've never been all that angry at him.
He faltered in the beginning, yes, But see again, we "get" that... it's the "human" thing, but he did come to do the right thing and fight.

The anger has always been for those Dems who didn't bother to fight with him and the Party who, in perfect unison, turned their backs on those people that were the most loyal and needed them most.

I remember on Inauguration Day, Al was supposed to be swearing in the Caucus and I don't believe the audience was aware of it. So the ceremony was humming along and it came time for the actual swearing in, and they were introducing someone who was going to preside.

Because of the things being said there was a small rumbling in the audience because people were saying "no way Al Gore's here" then he said his name.

That place went wild when he came out.
An audience full of still-hurting black people, Just Screaming and hollering.

I was in tears.
My mama was in tears.
He was almost in tears himself.
Maybe he thought we should have been pissed off at him.
Not at him.

We undertood the REAL enemy: George W Bush, the Cabal that had just pulled off a bloodless coup, and the Dems that helped with their own cowardice.

"Would it have changed the outcome in 2000? No, almost certainly not.
Could a little more noise have opened people's eyes to the need for election reform? Quite possibly. And we might be four years closer to getting it."

You're being naive if you think the DLC was going to lose it's chance to gain a REAL stranglehold over the party because of what happened in 2000. The Repubs weren't the only one that were involved in a bloodless coup here.
Believe it.

Look at what they have become since then.

There's a REASON they don't talk about election reform...it's the same reason they are mum on Iraq.

"Most important, would it have been the right thing to do? Absolutely."

The war was over as soon as they got back to Washington.
WE knew it, Gore did too.
He just wanted to get the f*ck out of there and you know what?
I don't blame him.
He was publicly kicked out, by his OWN Party that he'd protected for 8 years. Enough.

"And don't tell us about what we heard from the talking heads. We were there, and every bit as capable of seeing thru their games as you are. We watched the debates. We read the issue papers. We listened to the speeches. We heard the right-wing turn Gore into a liar and a joke, and never heard a word from him to refute it, never saw him take the offense against a druggie draft-dodger whose daddy bailed him out of failure after failure. Did the talking heads do the dirty work of the Repub noise machine? Of course. Do you expect them to do anything different in 2008? Don't hold your breath. Give us someone who will AT LEAST go down fighting, not positioning for the next time around."

Living in the past. Would I support 2000 Gore? Not sure.
But 2005, yes. He's been in the dark and found his voice.
He's fiery and committed. Intelligent and convincing.
He doesn't give a shit what anybody thinks about him any more; like him, or lump him.
I like that.
I believe there's a reason the American people can't seem to really move past him.
I also believe there's a reason God allowed 2000 to happen to him.
I'm willing to wait to find out that reason.

"Sigh... now you got me more pissed off about this than I want to be. Like I've said repeatedly, I do like Al Gore. But let's not re-write history, shall we? Or tell anyone who raises valid issues that they're dupes of the GOP?"

Deal.
As long as you don't use blacks as a reason to put down Al Gore.
Cause for the majority of us...we're alright with him.
Des

[ecstatic]

233. The "majority of us" are alright with him?

Count me out of that majority then. I had almost forgotten about Gore's betrayal in 2000 and I thank the OP for reminding me of the truth. Sure, Gore might have changed. But that doesn't change the fact that many black voters were ROBBED of their right to vote AND we've had to endure 8 years of Bush. I'm sorry but I cannot forgive someone who didn't think black voting rights were important enough to fight for.

[desi826]

237. Yes

Ask an average black person if they hate Gore for 2000 and the majority will say either "no. what happened happened", or "despite what happened, I still like him."

Truth Hurts A Lot wrote:

"Count me out of that majority then."

Ok.

"I had almost forgotten about Gore's betrayal in 2000 and I thank the OP for reminding me of the truth."

What is OP? And when you say "almost forgotten" what does that mean? Were you neutral about him or never thought about him or just didn't have any negative feelings about him at all?

"Sure, Gore might have changed."

And that counts for nothing?

"But that doesn't change the fact that many black voters were ROBBED of their right to vote"

And more are robbed every single election, courtesy of Bush and the Repubs and your friendly cowering Democrats. What is your position on them? Dems in particular?

"AND we've had to endure 8 years of Bush."

Five and yes it has been excruiating and we've lost alot including ours in New Orleans.

"I'm sorry but I cannot forgive someone who didn't think black voting rights were important enough to fight for."

Here's where I'm confused.
He did fight. He was the only one fighting.
Yes, Clinton was angry with him because he should have started fighting for us right from the beginning and thus framed the debate since Repubs have such a terrible record with black voting rights.
It was a PR fight that he could have won.
But he did eventually fight.
He just fought alone.
So I'm confused as to how he didn't think it was important enough.
Des

[Tom Rinaldo]

140. If Gore was President today, as he well should be

that would make Joe Lieberman Vice President today, preparing to run in 2008 as the heavy favorite for the Democratic nomination. An attempt to oppose Lieberman, under that scenario, would tear apart the Democratic Party, much as Kennedy running against Carter hurt the Democrats in 1980. That was an important choice Gore made in 2000, and he made the wrong one. I hold him accountable for that. But if he wins the nomination I would still support Gore. We could do a lot worse, but Gore is not my first choice.

[mtnsnake]

88. Some of your pet peeves w/Gore are why I hope Kerry doesn't run again

You know...where you were talking about not fighting the election results in a deciding state and more importantly running a poor campaign. Make that a pathetic campaign.

Having said that, I'd take Al Gore over just about anything else we have to offer right now, with the exception of maybe Clark or Dean.

[Adelante]

107. Oh, I'll take Al Gore, if that's who it is, quite happily

I just think he has to answer for this. I think we can't let this slide. I think voting rights has to be way up on the agenda and this is leftover quicksand. I want it cleaned up. I'm willing to believe he has changed since 2000, but I want to hear him on this topic. I want to hear him say he was wrong about this. No free pass.

[Joe Chi Minh]

106. I was pretty disgusted

with his stance against, or rather supine cringe before the neoconmen, in the Elio Gonzales affair. It took some believing.

I know he has some good qualities too (as well as a wonderfully wry sense of humour), but as you imply, in this situation, a positively bellicose spirit, however deviously expressed, has to be one of the key requisites in the next president - inevitably a Democrat, as they probably all have been, in truth, since Nixon. And the neoconmen seem to have done their best to finish off any lingering synmpathy with the Republican party.

It's not verbatim, but as a British journalist ventured at the time. A little boy of Elio's age needs a father far more than he needs "mad dog" capitalism. Well, the "mad dog" bit was mine, but I'm sure that's what meant...

[Crunchy Frog]

160. It was Gore's stance on the Elian Gonzales situation

that actually pushed me over the edge into voting for Nader. Essentially, he seemed to be willing to jettison the entire foundation of American family law, in which great uncles and 2nd cousins have no more claim to custody of a child that total strangers, for the sole purpose of pandering to a few people in south Florida who were never going to vote for him anyway. I could not believe that a man who was a father himself could take such a position.

To me it seemed to be an indication that he had no real core principles. Families and the parent/child relationship seem to be such fundamental cornerstones of our society. If he would jettison those for the sake of political expediency, what else would he be willing to jettison.

I'm virtually certain that he lost other votes besides mine over that. It may have lost him enough votes among the non-Cuban population of Florida to make it close enought there to steal.

I had a good deal of respect for the man at one time, but I really lost it during the 2000 election cycle.

Please note: I had not the faintest inkling who Wes Clark was in 2000, so my opinions about Gore cannot possibly be dismissed as those of a disgruntled Clarkie threatened by a rival candidate. I recall feeling very relieved in 2002 when he indicated that he would not be running in 2004. I had not heard of Clark then either.

[Joe Chi Minh]

194. That was my reaction.

I wasn't impressed by his silence over the persecution of the President on such surreally specious grounds, either.

I still find it uttterly, utterly baffling that not a single politico in either party went for them, and called them out for the pathetically trivial and irrelevant grounds for their pursuit of the sitting President and First Lady, and their transparent political motivation. It wasn't so much infantile in its transparency, as ante-natal. But that, apparently is par for the course for them. It's hardly surprising George Galloway was able to wipe the floor with those senators, as they, like all the other American politicans, had become so accustomed to living in cloud-cuckoo land, reality evidently seemed a strange and fearful land.

One day, I suspect that that fabled, prophetic Onion article will be required reading for all schoolchildren, as a warning not to look upon any politician, any human being, as a demi-god; or any flag as taking precedence over the Ten Commandments.

But, boy, if I'd have been in Bill's shoes, when I got on the box, live, I'd have ripped them to shreds, leading up to a denunciation of the usurpation of the democratic government of the US by the military-industrial complex and the venal, supine media in their pocket. And I'm sure those legal-eagle politicos could have done it a lot better than me. That old boy who called out McCArthy was really something.

[Joe Chi Minh]

197. Certainly, he has his qualities,

but, as a potential president, I wouldn't even rate Clark in the same ball-park as Kerry. Kerry is head and shouders above the rest, imo. He's one of those rare "One Nation" politicians of integrity. They're two a penny on the left, but integrity is another matter all together.

Just like the best soccer teams have a shape that they manage to keep throughout a game, Kerry has an identificably Christian world view, and more specifically a view of what America could be for all its citizens.

Regeneration of a viable manufacturing industry, with the level of remuneration leaving workers with a disposable income. The beneficial knock-on effects of generalised wealth in terms of the social fabric of a country can scarcely be overstated.

True rationalisation of industry and business in both our countries would mean a single tax on, respectively, personal and corporate income, in place of all the other "weasel" taxes, which, in fact, shift the burden onto the general public, who end up with an ever- decreasing income with which to pay their income tax and purchase goods. By spreading the nation's wealth more equitably, a synergy is produced, whereby in terms of the common benefits produced, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And what's good for all, is good for one, i.e. the individual.

[gulfcoastliberal]

127. Zzzzzzzz

Damn I miss that thread hiding x button!

Gore is different, older, wiser, and the only guy competent enough to possibly clean up the GOP mess. Appeasers such as Clinton, Biden, and their ilk need nt apply.

[FrenchieCat]

133. So we get on the Gore Bandwagon

or we are appeasers to the DLC?

Wow.....how narrow you have made my choices. Thanks for nothing! :hi:

[gulfcoastliberal]

136. Didn't say that

I just don't think comparing the Gore of today is fair to comparing his campaign of 2000, which he won anyway despite shit managers/advisors (as did Kerry) but the guy is smart and uncompromising. Frankly, I've had enough dem compromising over the last 5 years to last a lifetime.

[FrenchieCat]

137. And I think that you are in your rights to say that.....

and that is what you could have posted. However, I think that poster is in her right to have written OP and not be derided for it with a ZZZZZzzzz post stating "enough with appeasers"...that's all I'm saying.

[gulfcoastliberal]

175. Point well taken. n/t

[drummo]

156. No, but Biden, Hillary, Joementum

and many others on the Hill have been appeasers to the DLC

[IndianaGreen]

145. Which candidate is putting out these talking points about Gore?

C'mon, fezz up!

[Tom Rinaldo]

164. LOL n/t

[WA98296]

174. We want to know...

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

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

[xkenx]

147. I Agree With You 110%

Exactly my thoughts during the 2000 campaign. I could never trust Al Gore again to run a smart campaign, either himself or by having Rethug-HOs like Donna Brazile as his campaign manager. Dumb, dumb, dumb. We need Wes Clark, a man of principle, a man of steel, a man who speaks truth to power, a man who will execute a "General Smackdown" of Swift Boat Liars, and all other Rethug slugs.

[IndianaGreen]

187. A man that will not get us out of Iraq

A man that to this day has failed to call for an end to the war, promising instead to do a better job than Bush. That may be your man, but it certainly is not mine.

[xkenx]

192. Read My Post #148

Some Democrats are just negatively blinded by uniforms. This blindness has caused them to reject a man who is a better progressive Democrat than some of the pretenders out there. Clark's history is that of a humanitarian who just happened to wear a uniform for most of his career. It's the "duck" principle.

[Bridget Burke]

189. "A man of steel" ?

Yup, the Clarkies are definitely staging an anti-Gore campaign.

Tell us more about your guy--omitting the fascist imagery. Facts, please.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[Donna Zen]

191. Gore voted for Gulf War I when most Dems. voted against.

And since he also wore a uniform, are you saying that he is out of the running?

Alert: get out yer broadbush and paint the town intellectually dishonest. All ya need is some of dat "No Facts" cover-the-truth as long as it makes yer bash of de day.

Riddle me: What uniform did Cheney-Wolfowitz-Perle wear? Huh? None you say? Well, I'll be Marshall-planned.

[FrenchieCat]

196. I didn't realize that Rumsfeld had served!

Sounds like you like the Civilians who begin wars much better.

I used to hold you in respect....but now I see that shouldn't have been the case.

And how dare anyone asks anything about Al Gore. Love him or STFU seems to be the new spirit here at DU. How so democratic of you! Thanks for that Mr. Green!

[Crunchy Frog]

211. Hey, I seem to recall your saying that you had served in the military.

I will not move on to the obvious deduction that one could reach from that fact, in combination with your last post. It does strike me as a bit ironic though.

[xkenx]

193. Make Fun of My Figure of Speech All You Want, but

Wes Clark possesses the resolve, backbone, cojones, integrity to do what our last two Presidential candidates failed to do in their campaigns. And it's really hard for the leopard to change its spots.
P.S. When the mention of Wes Clark's attributes causes some to see only fascism, you know they have some serious blinders on for anyone with a military background.

[Tom Rinaldo]

195. Sorry, you already closed the door on being open minded

Here is our dialog from another thread:

You: "Why don't you tell us more positive things about Clark?
Someone who has never held political office has very little background to report. Cheekbones to die for & steel gray hair aren't enough."

Me: "If you become serious about learning about Clark, let me know know. A man who held formal Head of State status in Europe I do not believe can simply be dismissed as having very little background to report. I could care less if he were bald and pot bellied, maybe you feel differently. I can point you to numerous other threads where his background has been discussed at great length."

You: "With supporters like the ones who 've been posting anti-Gore threads.... I have no desire to know more about their boy. What political races has he won?"

I see a Pro Gore campaign being waged on DU right now, do you deny that? I have no problem with that personally. Promote anyone you want, but it is only Clark and Clark supporters being smeared. I see no fascist/militarist inferences against Gore being made by Clark supporters.

I will say without qualification, despite some misgivings I have about Al Gore, he would rank high on my list of Democrats I could support for President in 2008. Is that clear enough for you? I don't need you to say the same about Clark, but I do resent the implication that it is Clark supporters who are being negative about other Democrats when I see more evidence on these pro Gore threads of just the opposite.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

199. Tom, your points about Clark are well taken,

he falls into that category of unusal individuals, like Eisenhower, Colin Powell or Jesse Jackson, IMO, who can run for prez with credibility without a previous office on his resume. I believe he is qualified and potentially would be a good president.

But I think you overreach when you say only Clark and his boosters are being denigrated. Indeed, Gore is called a "chickenshit" in the OP of this thread, in which anti-Gore talking points are rehearsed. In a thread yesterday, I went through a long debate with several Clark people who called me intellectually dishonest twice without any basis whatsoever, IMO.

I had no informed opinion at the beginning of the debate regarding Clark's position on Iraq. In the course of the thread I learned that Clark had supported the invasion (with caveats about timing and multilateralism) but nonetheless supported the IWR. Indeed, he endorsed a pro-invasion Dem candidate in NH at that time. Despite significant evidence several of my debating opponents continued to hold to the idea that Clark had been consistently anti-war, without addressing my arguments and changing the subject with new attacks on Gore.

For the record, I think Clark would be a satisfactory, maybe excellent (too early to tell) VP nominee with Gore at the head of the ticket. But some (I'm not saying you) supporters who continue to assert his consistent anti-war position without addressing significant documentary evidence to the contrary, undermine their own credibility and perhaps his.

[Texas_Kat]

203. Before you make blanket statements from a few press sources

Before you make blanket statements from a few press sources, you should spend a little time researching. Many of the cut and paste jobs by members of the press with 'an agenda' are well-known and have been debunked by others like the Daily Howler.

For instance, here's a snip from the Howler about how the press has misrepresented Clark's position on Iraq:

THE TRUTH ABOUT CORRECTIONS: On Monday, it was Adam Nagourney who was typing the script, telling readers that “General Clark appeared to struggle as he explained his views on the war in response to a challenge from a questioner.” As we noted, Clark’s actual answer was blindingly clear , so Nagourney did what he had to do—he simply provided a fake, bogus “answer.” He quoted one part of what Clark had said, then typed in part of an earlier answer! After creating this phony amalgam, he typed the script: General Clark wasn’t clear (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/27/03).

This morning, the Times pretends to correct this strange “error.” You might have thought that the paper would show what Clark actually said in response to the question Nagourney cited. If you thought that, of course, you’d be wrong. It’s the law: Corrections must always hide the extent of the “error.” Here is the paper’s “correction:”

NEW YORK TIMES CORRECTION: An article on Monday about a debate in Detroit by Democratic presidential candidates referred incorrectly to a response from Gen. Wesley K. Clark: “Right after 9/11, this administration determined to do bait-and-switch on the American public. President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn’t have either one of them today.” The comment responded to a question about where he stands on the war in Iraq, not to the question “Are we to understand that what you’re saying now is that those things you have said that were positive about the war was not what you meant?”

On-line, that “correction” will live forever, tagged to Nagourney’s astonishing article. But please note: You’re never shown what Clark actually said to the question Nagourney cited. Is it true? Did Wes Clark “appear to struggle as he explained his views on the war?” No, of course, he plainly did not (text below). But New York Times readers will never know that. Let’s be plain: The mighty Times—and their script-typing scribes—don’t want you to know what Clark said.

Nagourney’s article will be on-line forever. It will still say that Clark “appeared to struggle.” But the correction won’t show you what Clark really said. Readers will have no way of knowing: Clark didn’t “appear to struggle” at all. That was just scribes typing scripts."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102903.shtml

Be sure to read the ENTIRE page, or you'll miss this:

Here’s what Clark actually said, in response to the question which came before Cameron’s: “I’ve been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer. I was against it in the fall. I was against it in the winter. I was against it in the spring. And I’m against it now. It was an unnecessary war.”

If you do a little exploring (as opposed to accepting the first thing that comes along that happens to agree with your viewpoint) you'll see that accepting virtually single source comments from the press is a bad way to evaluate anything. It still astonishes me that supporters of one political figure that has recieved similar smear treatment will persist in believing similarly twisted garbage thrown at another.

:shrug:

[CarolNYC]

205. Unfortunately,

it seems this one will either dismiss or entirely ignore anything that doesn't fit in with his preconceived notion, the preconceived notion which he claims he doesn't have but which is more than apparent in his initial "challenge" that brought Clark into the conversation in the first place...Kind of transparently disingenuos, if you ask me. Unfortunate but, sadly, not uncommon. :(

[Texas_Kat]

206. I really hate to assume

that anyone comes here with an 'agenda'. I'd prefer to think that posters may just be uninformed. Perhaps a bit too Pollyannish on my part... but I'll own the sentiment.

It really does surprise me though, that on the one hand.... some use sources to 'prove' a point about a national Democratic figure while discounting those same sources when they refute arguments that don't fit within a poster's worldview.

Being widely read allows an intelligent voter to synthesize information from many sources.... it's the only defense against the MSM with an agenda.

[CarolNYC]

214. I hear ya, Kat....

And I understand the Pollyanna impulse. Some of those who know me in real life tell me it's one of my faults, giving people the benefit of the doubt long after they don't deserve it. It's the attitude I came into last night's discussion with....but eventually even I get wise to what's going on, even if I'm naive and gullible at first...

[Admiral Loinpresser]

215. Unfortunately, I think this will be my last on this theme...

I think ad hominem attacks, such as yours above reflect more poorly on the attacker than the target.

I admit I was irritated (but I think with justification) when I issued the challenge to which you allude, but your aspersions about my character are false. I truly didn't know when I put down the gauntlet, what the record would show about Clark's position on the war, period. I read what was supplied to me by both "sides" and digested it as best I could. His own editorial clearly does not oppose invasion, but rather supports invasion after diplomatic attempts to create a multilateral coalition.

But I think the conversation is degenerating. I try to avoid personal attacks, but my recent experience with Clark backers is that such are likely if one disagrees, no matter how logically. But feel free to have the last word on this. Just know that I believe I have generally stuck to the arguments, I have had documentary evidence for most of my assertions and I have rebutted or conceded each point raised by others. I can't say that I have enjoyed reciprocity.

[CarolNYC]

216. "I read what was supplied to me by both "sides""

I guess I'm not one of your "sides" then because you said you did not and probably would not read the 2002 testimony and, as you keep ignoring my question about the salon interview, it's hard for me to draw any conclusion other than that you haven't read it, even after I explained to you how to access the whole thing. Those are the only two pieces I asked you to read and it seems you've read neither...I don't know about your exchanges with anyone else here. I haven't been following them that closely, if at all, but here's what I see in your exchanges with me. You asked for something which I provided (and I've been very respectful in all of my responses to you) and you've ignored it. Spin it however you want.

Now you can have the last word if you want it because I don't need it but that sentence just stuck out like you'd slapped me in the face.

It's OK though. Now I know where you're coming from.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

227. OK.

I went back and read the salon interview and his congressional testimony.

Here is what I discern from reading everything that has been cited:

Clark wanted an international approach (multilateral approach)to dealing with Iraq.

He was generally critical of the Bush's pre-emption doctrine, although with some nuance.

Despite reservations, he supported the IWR.

In congressional resolutions about war, one must either support it or oppose it in our system. The only exception is when the party in control will allow amendment, which was clearly off the table because of the way the Hastert/Delay congress does business.

We can debate the advisability of the vote but I think the record of Clark's reluctant support is fairly clear. Other than some denials by Clark a year later, I can't find evidence otherwise.

So the choice was yes or no. Clark, although nuanced about the course of action, supported the resolution.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/october2002/10_09_02.shtml

[Tom Rinaldo]

231. I will agree to disagree if you will

I believe it is clear that Clark supported A IWR, just not the one that was passed. He saw a need for a Congressional Resolution, but not the one that Congress passed. However I will agree to disagree even if you don't agree to disagree. As I said elsewhere to another Gore supporter, this type of detailed debate about who said what and why back in 2002 was exactly the stuff the 2003/2004 DU Primary Wars was about. Believe me, I have been over this stuff in at least as much detail as you have, because it used to be a daily debate for me, The material you are reviewing now plus a lot more all were put under a microscope back then also, and I was among those looking through that microscope.

So we do not agree. I can accept that for now. If both Gore and Clark run for President again I will gladly debate you sentence by sentence at that time. I do not think that debate serves a constructive purpose now, since obviously it seems not to be a simple matter to reach consensus on. That is why I will not go around with you yet another time on this. I could but choose not to for I think sensible reasons.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

235. Sounds fine, Tom.

Hope to see you around the site. Good luck.

[CarolNYC]

238. Yay, you read my stuff....

..which is all I was ever asking anyway...Thanks!

Please read this also:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2121094&mesg_id=2121457

And, if you can at least agree that Clark was speaking out against this war before June 2003, which is all I was trying to say, then you and Tom and I can all go and have a cyber beer together, OK?

I said it before and I meant it...I really don't want to fight with you. It's maddening enough fighting with the Bushbots and right wing zealots. I hate having to fight with those who are supposed to be my brothers and sisters in this fight. ;(

[Admiral Loinpresser]

239. I'll take a Stout.

I said it before and I meant it...I really don't want to fight with you. It's maddening enough fighting with the Bushbots and right wing zealots. I hate having to fight with those who are supposed to be my brothers and sisters in this fight.

I agree completely. The only reason I got in a scuffling mood was the tone of OP. See you around. ;)

P.S. While we're making reading recommendations, Earth In The Balance is one of the most important books ever written. Gore wrote it in 1992 and talked about climate change causing hurricanes to become more frequent and violent. Oh that wacky Ozone Man! As our Republican friends have pointed out, he was so crazy to suggest we need to replace the internal combustion engine.

[CarolNYC]

243. I'll take a Beck's Dark...

Tom, are you buying? :)

I gotta tell you, whenever I get frustrated with fellow Democrats, all I have to do is go spend just a little time with my Bush worshipping "friends", the ones who insist there were no more than 20,000 people at the anti-war demonstration on Saturday and that the corrupt Dems only went after DeLay because they have no platform to put forward, to realize just who the real "enemy" is.

As for Gore's long-standing concern for the environment, it is one of the things I most admire about him.

:toast:

[Admiral Loinpresser]

245. burp n/t

[Admiral Loinpresser]

210. A classic "straw man" argument...

Before you make blanket statements from a few press sources, you should spend a little time researching.

What blanket statement did I make? Certainly none relying on any reportage by Adam Nagourney, whom I consider to have similar reliability to that of Rush Limbaugh.

Here is the only statement I can imagine to which you were referring:

In the course of the thread I learned that Clark had supported the invasion (with caveats about timing and multilateralism) but nonetheless supported the IWR. Indeed, he endorsed a pro-invasion Dem candidate in NH at that time.

I certainly stand by those statements, primarily based on Clark's own editorial entitled "Let's Wait To Attack."

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

Also, a few other sources are pertinent:

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

Stephen Frothingham, “Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns about Iraq,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire 9 Oct. 2002.

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/october2002/10_09_02.shtml

I saw the Nagourney pieces but discounted them for the reasons you gave, so indeed your assumption that I took the first thing that came along is incorrect. I did "some exploring", because I am skeptical about anything the NYT "reports" about politics. I used a variety of sources, including the General's own words.

[Tom Rinaldo]

219. A short "well mannered" reply (since you directed a post to me)

The OP for this thread involved an honest point of contention, in my opinion, regarding how Gore chose to handle the aftermath of the, um, "contested" 2000 Election. One does not have to agree with the position taken in the OP, but I do not think it is fair to simply discard it as "an attack" as if there were no there there to reasonably debate.

The poster related her emotional reaction to the 2000 election campaign also, and in that context said she felt then that Gore's behavior during it was "chicken shit". OK, call her out on that use of words if it is important to you, but to spin this all into a campaign of "anti Gore Talking points being rehearsed" is, again in my opinion, an unreasonable stretch, and not far from being a slur. But I would rather not prolong a divisive discussion so I won't pursue that line of discussion any further. Gore is fine by me. By no means perfect in my book, and in my opinion he would not make the best candidate for the Democrats to run in 2008, but Gore might well make a good one.

Regarding Clark and the Iraq invasion, I was prepared earlier to say a great deal to you about that, but I was called away from my desk at the time. I strongly differ with the conclusion you say you reached regarding Clark's position, and I find that Clark and Gore had virtually identical positions on it. If need be I will get into painstaking detail with you regarding this, as I researched all of the sources you sited and I know many that you did not site. I am not sure that this would be a productive use of our time. I ultimately worked to elect Kerry/Edwards for God's sake, and Kerry for reasons that he explained actually voted for the IWR, and Edwards not only voted for it but openly supported Bush's Iraq invasion.

I will therefor sharply edit my reply on this matter to two short points. Regarding that NH congressional candidate who disputed Clark's word about his knowledge of some of the specifics of the then still pending (and subject to various negotiated revisions which were being bandied about) IWR resolution, she made that charge a year later. And what else was she doing a year later, one might ask? Here is a quote from coverage dated 10/23/03: "Swett, national co-chair for Clark rival Joe Lieberman, disputed Clark's claim that he didn't know what was in the measure when counseling her last year." Uh huh.

Down thread a bit you cited an editorial written by Clark on 10/10/02 to prove your claim that he favored an invasion of Iraq, except at a later date under more favorable circumstances. I like that editorial actually, it sounds very much like something Al Gore might have said. Let me quote part of it for you:

"The key issue about Iraq has never been whether we should act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions and disarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine."

Note the phrase "if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions and disarm." Bush invaded without waiting for the U.N. to conclude that Saddam didn't comply with U.N. Resolutions. That is why Clark always called Bush's Iraq invasion "an elective war", launched by choice and not by necessity. Clark clearly cited lack of compliance with U.N. resolutions as a pre-condition to direct military action in his editorial. But even more telling is this phrase: "with force as a last resort." One does not specify taking an action as a last resort unless one acknowledges that other options exist which need to first be exhausted. Clark held out clear hope that those other options would make the use of force against Iraq unnecessary, and every comment Clark made that followed that editorial was clear as a bell that the other options never were exhausted. Clark did not back an Iraq invasion, actually he advised and fought against it.

So I beg to differ with this statement of yours:

"In the course of the thread I learned that Clark had supported the invasion (with caveats about timing and multilateralism) but nonetheless supported the IWR. Indeed, he endorsed a pro-invasion Dem candidate in NH at that time.

I certainly stand by those statements, primarily based on Clark's own editorial entitled "Let's Wait To Attack."

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.ira... / "

P.S. In October 2002 it could not be said that even Katrina Swett was a pro invasion Democrat, she admitted then that she was seeking and open to advice on what stance she should take toward the IWR, which by the way would be highly unfair to characterize as a call for an Iraq invasion, as unhappy as I am with what was passed by Congress.

[Crunchy Frog]

207. Well, from where I'm sitting, it looks like

a highly orchestrated campaign by Gorbots to spam the board with threads pushing Gore in '08. It's all in the eye of the beholder isn't it.

I've kept my mouth shut about Gore, except to express what I felt in 2000 when he endorsed the politically motivated kidnappings of small children, but I will not keep my mouth shut over an orchestrated smear campaign against people who happen to support Clark, or any other candidate for that matter.

I'm making this statement as a free agent expressing my personal opinion. Not as part of an orchestrated campaign. If you can't promote your guy without attacking other posters on here, I feel sorry for you.

[BluGrl]

198. TN won't vote for him

[Rainscents]

202. Oh, I bet by now, lot of TN people had changed their mind about Gore!

At least Gore didn't bow out on recount issue! He fought this all the way! Well as Kerry, he caved in!

[confludemocrat]

225. Shouldn't matter, doesn't matter, TN is a dysfunctional place n/t

[J-Hen]

204. I have nothing against Clark

But with these attacks on Gore, it really turns me off on his supporters.

[Adelante]

208. Welcome to DU, J-Hen!!

:hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

212. How's that for a little orchestration?

;-)

[FrenchieCat]

213. Well just make sure that you follow all of the threads

and read each post to determine who what actually occurred. I think that your bias as to who is attacking who is not accurate.

I did start a thread asking questions about Gore, and in it, I was very clear as to what my questions were. If that is to be considered an attack...then the real question is, would Gore supporters be able to survive being Gored by the real opposition...or will they whine about "attacks" and state that there should be none?

Clark is and has been attacked for as long as I have been on DU...and I was here under another name prior to this one. His been called everything from a Faux democrat to a War criminal, yet that has never led most supporters from making blanket attacks against any "groups" of folks. On this very thread....we have Gore supporter stating that Clark was for the War, for the Resolution, etc... Same Gore supporter, no matter what documentation provided, continues to say same. But still, I don't see Clark supporters who have attempted to respond to his accusations falling apart and whining about "Gore Supporters this and that" but rather they continue to try and satisfy poster in a reasonable manner with sourced information and reasoned debates.

The point should be to get DU members to support your guy....not to shut down debate and act like there's some kind of entitlement because Gore ran once before and is now "changed".

For Gore supporters to come into the kitchen but not expect any heat whatsoever...only shows that they are not doing their homework in handling what might come their way if Gore did decide to run.

So what does that really say about Gore Supporters who respond as you do? Well, first it tells me that you are not representing your guy very well. I doubt that Al Gore would refuse to answer questions, and instead start "hatin'" on the source of a reasonable question.

So let Supporters of one candidate somehow "turn you off" of said candidate. That's your decision. But, I really do hope that if this is a sampling of how Gore supporters will react to general calm questions, what might happen if he's actually attacked by those who don't mean quite as well!

Now that's scary!

[J-Hen]

217. The attacks are silly

During the last four years Al Gore is one of only a few Democratic leaders to stand up to Bush's Iraq War and attacks on our democracy.

<http://www.alternet.org/election04/19047/>

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,797999,00.html>

From what I have read there has been some talk recently that Gore may run for President in 2008. Many people believe Wes Clark could run as well, and some of his supporters think the best way to promote their guy is by claiming Gore was for the war and didn't fight in 2000, or whatever. I have no doubt that Gore would be able to take the punches in a smear campaign during the primaries and general election, but we haven't even reached the midterms yet. So you want a frank discussion of the issues? Fine. But could we avoid these attacks on those who are actually fighting for us (I'm including both Gore and Clark), and instead go after Bush, the Republicans, and the Democrats who are appeasing them?

[Tom Rinaldo]

221. I think you have it reversed

No Clark supporter claimed that Gore was "for the war" though some Gore supporters claimed that Clark was pro Iraq invasion. The discussion about Gore's position relative to an Iraq invasion was to establish whether or not Gore had taken a more dovish position regarding possible military action against Iraq than Clark, since some Gore supporters where making that exact specific claim, pulling Clark into the discussion to contrast his supposedly more "militarist" position with Gores more "diplomatic" one. Personally I think both men took very admirable positions regarding Iraq at the time.

Having said that I do agree with your basic point. We should not be picking fights between Democrats right now. I like both Gore and Clark.

[littleleaguemom]

222. It's true Al Gore asked her not to protest

I called her office and asked about it at the time.

[WA98296]

226. I agree.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

228. Boxer didn't lie - she was just right to do it back in 2000.

Her mistake is saying it was a mistake.

[WA98296]

240. Free Trade has not helped U.S. labor

[janx]

244. With all due respect--

Isn't it a little early for this? :shrug:

[paineinthearse]

246. WesDem, it is very refreshing to an original and well-conceived post

Perhaps it is due to the recent rapid growth, but has anyone else noticed that DU has drifted away from this style of post to ones that are "frivolous" or "me too" in nature, or answers that are knee-jerk reactions with a subject line including "nt" (I plead guilty of that on rare occasion, but the frequency has dramatically risen).