Once again the DEMS leave Al Gore to TWIST IN THE WIND.....

[montana500]

My how times don't change, eh?

Al Gore gave the most historic speech of the last 10 years yesterday, and I' not hearing a GOD DAMN THING from any democratic leaders. NOT A GOD DAMN THING. There should be press releases and press conferences ALL OVER the news today framing this issue that Gore brought up.


But guess who I am hearing from? And guess who wants to frame the issue isntead? And guess who has it on their frontpage in the top story section? Surprise.

Instead of hearing DEMs rally around Gore and lead the charge, we get frontpage news from SMEAR bullies in the White House.





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10891443/

"WASHINGTON - The White House accused former Vice President Al Gore of hypocrisy Tuesday for his assertion that President Bush broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.

“If Al Gore is going to be the voice of the Democrats on national security matters, we welcome it,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said in a swipe at the Democrat, who lost the 2000 election to Bush only after the Supreme Court intervened.
"

[wtmusic]

1. Where is Harry? nt

[obreaslan]

34. I guess he's "givin' hell" somewhere else....

:sarcasm:

:grr:

[blm]

2. Exact same thing happened with Kerry's Iraq withdrawal plan speech.

The most significant speeches from Dems get ignored.

[wryter2000]

3. Cheer up

:sarcasm:

It could be worse. We could have statements from the DLC today that Gore doesn't speak for the Democrats and, in fact, Democrats stand behind the President's efforts to keep us safe.

:sarcasm:

Non-sarcasm: I believe Dean is supposed to make a speech tomorrow. I wouldn't be surprised if he follows up on what Gore said.

[Old Vet]

4. Sad, Seriously depressing, What a great speech!

[sui generis]

5. yeah well, maybe the harshest lesson here

is that there are plenty of people who won't vote to keep the very sheep in power that Gore talked about: consummate politicians who respond to their financial base over their political base every time. I am starting to get pretty angry with our ball-free leadership.

It is Darwinian. If the Dems lose because we don't defend our own, because we refuse to support own base or because we are politically overcautious, then eventually we'll have to run as moderate republicans in our new one party system, or just regret not having had the balls to be democratic politicians to begin with. Either way, if our Democratic reps and senators don't all stand up and stand together on these issues, they're going to be out of office sooner than they expect, and permanently.

[Burning Water]

6. It's too bad.

Al gave a great speech. But his moment has passed. He failed to stand up when it counted, and now no one much pays any attention to him.

[NYCGirl]

9. When exactly did he fail to stand up? NT

[Bridget Burke]

11. In 2000, he stood up but was deserted by his Party.

His running mate turned against him & most Democratic powers avoided the fight.

Quite a few of us pay a lot of attention to him.

[Burning Water]

17. Yes, people

here, some of them, do pay attention to him. So. I'm not hearing any complaints about how the MSM is ignoring his speech? Right? If the Repukes pay attention, it's only to mock him.

It's a sad thing, but the world is actually divided into winners and losers, and AL lost. Fairly or not, it doesn't really change the consequences that follow. Now, he doesn't have to stay a loser, and please don't flame me, I'm not commenting on his character, morals, philosophy, or anything. All I'm saying is that, while we on DU must continue to research the stolen elections of 2000, etc., Al Gore must firmly, and publicly put it behind him. Then he will not look like a 'sore loser'. Again, I am not saying that he is a sore loser, or even that I perceive him as one. I'm only saying that I think the general public does, to a certain extent, and that perception is everything in politics.

Until Al has done this, I don't think he has a chance to win the general election, so I won't support him in the primaries. I also don't think he fought hard enough in 2000. So I am not certain that he is the fighter that we need, regardless of his rhetoric. But I might could change my mind on that one, if he shows me.

[NYCGirl]

19. He fought for SIX WEEKS, right up to the Supreme Court.

You have a problem with that? You want to name someone who did MORE?

[Bridget Burke]

20. What has Gore said, recently, about 2000?

Yes, we've heard "sore loser" before. Thanks for the reminder! "The world is actually divided into winners & losers"--another gem. But you regret using Right Wing Talking Points, so it's OK?

Support whom you wish.

[Burning Water]

22. Right wing

talking points?? WTF are you talking about?

Naturally, I will support whom I wish. Same as you?

[Bridget Burke]

23. "Sore loser" is one....

By the way--you neglected my question about Gore's recent statements concerning the stolen election in 2000. Please--point the way. If they exist, that is.

[Burning Water]

24. Please point out where

I said that Al Gore was a sore loser. I only said that some people perceived him that way. That is not a "talking point" but an observable fact. For those that have minds not completely closed.

[Bridget Burke]

26. You only used the phrase twice....

Just to ensure we got your message--that most people thought he was a "sore loser." Prove it.

By the way--you said that Gore needed to leave 2000 behind. I asked you for evidence that he was dwelling on the stolen election. I asked twice, in fact. Still waiting!

And--others have pointed out that he fought until there was no more hope in 2000. No replies to that, either.

[Burning Water]

28. Love

the way that you impute motivation in the face of a complete lack of evidence. Nor did I say "most people". What I said was, "the general public does, to a certain extent", which to me means "at least some people". But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

What would you accept as proof? As this whole thing revolves around perceptions, the public's of Al Gore, mine of the public, at least some portions of it, your's of me, I'm not sure what you want? Even if I gave you specific examples showing what I considered to be this type of behavior, you may see it differently.

This is my impression and opinion of, not Al Gore, but of his chances to ever claim the Presidency, and of how he is perceived, not by me, but by a portion of the public. It is my opinion, and I never claimed it for more, except that I think it is a fact that some people consider Al Gore to be <self-censored to avoid causing offense>.

Anyway, there will be lots of opinions floating around about who is the best nominee in 2008. Not all of the one's that you disagree with will be coming from RWingers. So show a little tolerance and respect for other opinions.

I'll support Gore if he gets the nomination, but am likely to work for, donate to, and vote for someone else during the primaries.

[Bridget Burke]

32. OK! You're a Flaming Leftist. Now--please answer my questions....

In an earlier post where you mentioned the 2000 Recount, you said Al Gore must firmly, and publicly put it behind him. Then he will not look like a 'sore loser'. Again, I am not saying that he is a sore loser, or even that I perceive him as one. I'm only saying that I think the general public does, to a certain extent, and that perception is everything in politics.

What recent comments indicate that Gore is still dwelling on 2000? Should he call a press conference & state that Bush won Fair & Square?

And what more could he have done in 2000?

By the way--any recent polls on how "the general public" sees Gore?

[radio4progressives]

27. This argument Enables the Election Thieves & Thugs Who Continue

to engineer elections through intimidation and theft.

Al Gore has put the election "behind him" publicly and I do not fault him for that, after all look who REFUSED to have his back when he tried to fight for what was right and fair. The DLC. That was the first level of betrayal since the 2000 elections and goes to the root of why these vichy bastards must be ousted from "leadership" position - (certainly must be soundly discredited by the rank and file).

But in my considered opinion, Gore has acted valiantly & heroically with passion and conviction and honesty and true patriotism.

I didn't have respect for Gore in the 2000 elections campaign, i didn't respect his choice of Lieberman as a running mate. I was deeply disappointed with his performance in the debate with that imbecile, thief and fascists, who hijacked the 2000 elections and is occupying the white house now.

But a lot has changed with Al Gore since that experience and in the course of these five years...

He speaks for me and I believe that he speaks for millions more of us who absolutely would abandon everything to ensure he is elected in 2008 despite his pronouncements that he has no intentions of running again.

(i can't blame him for that position, until we fix the elections fraud issue, the thefts will continue)

In recent days i read or heard a compelling message to Al Gore, insisting that he put aside his doubts and position to the contrary, and recognize that he MUST run again, for the sake of our democracy & our constitution and the welfare of our country. I've paraphrased this on memory. I think it was someone who emailed Mike Malloy last night, now that I think of it. but it was really quite cogent and in my opinion on target.

Regardless if one believes that Gore should run again in 2008, or that he didn't "do enough" in 2000 (as many of my friends feel) let us not dismiss his efforts in 2000 in light of events that were beyond his power, and let us not dismiss the enormity of the subsequent impact these events had on our country and indeed the world.

Let us all get behind Gore at least as the greatest spokesperson for this cause that we are all supposedly fighting together for, and which is so desperately needed.

[Burning Water]

29. I agree with this statement

Let us all get behind Gore at least as the greatest spokesperson for this cause that we are all supposedly fighting together for, and which is so desperately needed.

I don't know that he's "the greatest", but certainly he has a role to play as a spokesperson. He did give an excellent speech. I just feel that he has a handicap that he must always consider, and I do not think he is the best potential nominee.

Edit to add: MIght as well get everybody on my case. I don't think HC is the best nominee, either, or JK. I'm sorta leaning toward Clark, but I haven't made up my mind yet. I won't try to defend my positions here. Opinions are like belly buttons, and these are mine.

[radio4progressives]

36. Well I've become a Feingold Fan myself, But Gore does have a legitimate

claim to the executive branch as the leader of the free world, after all he actually WON that election.

So i would defer my current excitement for Feingold, to get right behind Al Gore to reclaim his legitmate right as President of the United States.

[montana500]

14. that's crap.

He's a leader on civil rights and global warming awareness.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Not surprising, knowing how Dems all march to their own beat

Unity? Where is there a sense of unity in this party?

This time we need someone with some genuine fire and passion.

Dems had better get their act together - and soon.

[madfloridian]

8. I disagree.

I don't know why people keep saying the Democrats abandoned Gore. I know the DNC bloggers were mainly off yesterday, and Dean was in Missouri speaking out himself.

I have not heard any Democrats criticize Gore, and I think it should be assumed they support him.

Why do you say that?

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. I would feel better if they DID say they support him or liked the speech,

rather than saying little or nothing.

Why wouldn't they come out let Dems know they like his message?

[madfloridian]

16. It should be assumed, of course.

Unless you hear differently.

[Ilsa]

10. Good observation. The Repukes stick together through

thick and thin, even when they know they are amoral and unethical, as long as they aren't in dager of losing their jobs. There is little to no risk in continuing this discussion of Gore's speech, and the Dems are either asleep or disinterested. He made some very good points that bear repeating. My favorite is that it is an insult to the generations before us that fought fascism, naziism, and tyranny for us to complain of having to fight the greatest threat to us: terrorism.

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. Good point. The Repukes got behind *gasp* W, even though

I'm sure many knew he wasn't the best they had to offer, and sadly look how that turned out................

[karynnj]

12. It's been less than 24 hours!

Gore is not the first to raise this issue - in mid December, it was raised by Kerry, Feingold, and Dean. Many other Senators mentioned it during the Patriot act discussions.

That said some of the stronger Democrats are doing other things right now. Kennedy, Biden and Feingold are on the Judiciary committee - and they just finished their hearings but that committee is still working. Kerry is on a 12 day information gathering trip to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel, Jordan and Iraq. Other than the judiciary committee (and possibly other committee's the Senate is not in session.

Dean will likely speak out - Yesterday was MLK day - it is likely that it could have backfired if last night we had many people out on this issue. Many were likely in their states observing MLK day in some resonable fashion.

[tridim]

18. The second salvo starts Wednesday

Stay tuned.

[glitch]

21. Give them credit: they are allowing the RNC to spew their WEAK response.

Nice setup, and the bushbots bit.
Let's see what the Dems have to say on Wednesday.

[rniel]

25. Right after a george bush speech

Pundits are there framing it like they want, doing their job. We need something like this. Work in tandem for gods sake.

[TayTay]

30. The Repub Congress is not in town.

The Senate comes back tomorrow. I believe their is a Sen Dems caucus lunch and we can see what happens.

Why the rush? Why can't this sink in?

[Talismom]

31. I recently joined in a discussion with my NY State senator about what gives

with the way the Democratic party functions. His observations were to the effect that at both the state and federal levels, this is what you see from the Dems. He said that anyone, from any country in the world who observed how the Rebubs/Dems operate whether or not they agreed with the Repubs, would recognize it as a political party standing together and acting the way political parties act. By contrast, the Dems. act like little fiefdoms whose only concern is getting reelected and so keeping their jobs. They never take any chances in order to stick their necks out and support another party member because that might cause them to risk their own reelection. So we don't really have an opposition party to work with. Is it any wonder we're all so frustrated. I hope Dean is doing a little better these days. But given how vicious the Repubs. are, it feels like too little, too late.

[0007]

33. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind....

Guess they're trying to find out if Gore is a hypocrite.

If Will Pitt made that speech yesterday, what would McClellen say about William Pitt?

[sui generis]

35. that's easy

he's a serbo-croation leftist guerilla with a thing for eating live puppies, and he hangs out on that terrorist website, whuzzisname, Demonic Underground or something like that.