What makes Al Gore different than the Clintons?

[ecstatic]

I've noticed a lot of Clinton hate on these boards lately, and I've also noticed that Gore is held to a different standard. Sure he grew a beard, made a speech or two about Bush, and is now telling the world about global warming... But he is just as centrist as the Clintons (which I don't mind by the way, as I myself am a moderate liberal).

[panader0]

1. Gore still has a shot, No Whitewater gate, No Hillary, No BJ

Tipper doesn't give head.. But I remember when Zappa went off on Tipper about lyrics..........

[BillZBubb]

2. Gore was the first "name" Democrat to speak against Iraq.

For progressives, Gore is more on issue than either of the Clintons. Sure he's not perfect, but he's one of the few that get close.

The Clintons still haven't denounced the war. Hillary is foolishly trying to move right. What she doesn't seem to get is that the right will never support her and she is alienating the people who might. She seems phony and poll driven.

Bill Clinton is another story. As president, he was a huge success in my opinion. But, he also planted the seeds for Bush regime. A lot of his instincts offer short term gain and long term pain for the party.

[ecstatic]

4. But does that count? Since he was no longer a Senator

How do we know he would not have foolishly given the President the same authority that our other Dem Senators did? Based on his behavior when the CBC was pleading with him to investigate the 2000 Florida elections I'm not so sure Gore would have voted 'no.'

[NYCGirl]

14. Read this from 9/02:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

[AlGore-08.com]

19. And on 11/24/02 Gore said he wouldn't have voted to authorize

(11/24/02 was after Congress voted to authorize but before the invasion)

http://web.archive.org/web/20030217082353/www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/11/21/MN58265.DTL

Gore bashes Bush's record
Possible prelude to candidacy
by Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief

(snip)

For the first time, Gore -- who was one of the few Democratic senators to vote in support of the Gulf War in 1991 -- said he would have voted against authorizing the White House to use force against Saddam Hussein had he been a member of Congress last month.

(more... )

As the previous poster said, Gore's first major speech specifically about the second Iraq war was "Iraq and the War On Terrorism" given 9/23/02 - - a little over two weeks before Congress authorized the invasion. But, of course, since it was while Congress was debating what the resolution would be, he did not say flat out "I would vote against it". Instead, he urged Congress to vote against it.

Keep in mind that back at this time (September through November 2002) Gore was still actively considering a 2004 Presidential run - - and was the Democratic front runner by a very large margin. The invasion was an extremely popular idea, and the Republicans had already started their "Only traitors oppose invading Iraq" b.s. Gore had everything to loose by opposing the war, but he did it anyway.

He has consistently opposed the war ever since that September 2002 speech.

[ecstatic]

29. Thanks to both of you for the timetable

Because I was wondering when he actually came out against the war.

You say, "Gore had everything to lose by opposing the war..." I'm not sure I agree with that. I'd say he had nothing to lose by that point, as he was no longer an elected official and probably didn't see himself ever running for office again.

BTW, I'm not anti-Gore. I just don't see why he is put up on a pedastal while his 'running crew' (so to speak) is trashed.

[blm]

43. I always found that speech fascinating for what was said

and find it amazing that people treat it as a staunch anti-war stand.

Peruse these parts, and it shows that Gore knew Bush could already go in with the 1991 resolution, just as I've said many times, so the IWR was only a political maneuver, Bush already could go in legally. The Dems negotiating did get weapon inspectors back in to Iraq and Iran and Syria off the table in exchange for their support - something was better than nothing.


From Gore's speech linked above:

>>
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. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist group. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan - with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.

If we end the war in Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, "that's for the Iraqis to come together and decide."

During one of the campaign debates in 2000 when then Governor Bush was asked if America should engage in any sort of "nation building" in the aftermath of a war in which we have involved our troops, he stated gave the purist expression of what is now a Bush doctrine: "I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. We're going to have a kind of nation building corps in America? Absolutely not."

The events of the last 85 years provide ample evidence that our approach to winning the peace that follows war is almost as important as winning the war itself. The absence of enlightened nation building after World War I led directly to the conditions which made Germany vulnerable to fascism and the rise to Adolph Hitler and made all of Europe vulnerable to his evil designs. By contrast the enlightened vision embodied in the Marshall plan, NATO, and the other nation building efforts in the aftermath of World War II led directly to the conditions that fostered prosperity and peace for most the years since this city gave birth to the United Nations.

Two decades ago, when the Soviet Union claimed the right to launch a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan, we properly encouraged and then supported the resistance movement which, a decade later, succeeded in defeating the Soviet Army's efforts. Unfortunately, when the Russians left, we abandoned the Afghans and the lack of any coherent nation building program led directly to the conditions which fostered Al Qaeda terrorist bases and Osama Bin Laden's plotting against the World Trade Center. Incredibly, after defeating the Taliban rather easily, and despite pledges from President Bush that we would never again abandon Afghanistan we have done precisely that. And now the Taliban and Al Qaeda are quickly moving back to take up residence there again. A mere two years after we abandoned Afghanistan the first time, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Following a brilliant military campaign, the U.S. abandoned the effort to destroy Saddam's military prematurely and allowed him to remain in power.

What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to America's prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to America's prospects for continuing the historic leadership we began providing to the world 57 years ago, right here in this city by the bay.

I believe, therefore, that the resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants, and needs to be narrowed. 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, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration's thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change.

Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.

The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its gravity.
>>

The IWR that Gore is suggesting above asked only for a renewed UN Council demand, which the UN did do, and a commitment from Bush that once in Iraq, he would stay in and follow through on its reconstruction. Those provisions would NOT have prevented war.

[Uncle Joe]

63. Apparently Al thought the IWR was more than that

or he would not have said this in that same speech.

"The foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of what may lie before it. Such consideration is all the more important because of the Administration's failure thus far to lay out an assessment of how it thinks the course of a war will run - even while it has given free run to persons both within and close to the administration to suggest that this will be an easy conquest. 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.

By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network - much as we manage to squander in one year's time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine - of preemption.

The doctrine of preemption is based on the idea that in the era of proliferating WMD, and against the background of a sophisticated terrorist threat, the United States cannot wait for proof of a fully established mortal threat, but should rather act at any point to cut that short.

The problem with preemption is that in the first instance it is not needed in order to give the United States the means to act in its own defense against terrorism in general or Iraq in particular. 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."

[blm]

64. They didn't approve the IWR proposed by Bush - Bush wanted to go into Iran

and Syria, and NO weapons inspections or further diplomacy in Iraq. When Gore gave his speech, the IWR was still taking shape and Dems were working to get Iran and Syria off the table and weapons inspectors back in to Iraq.

Gore was against the war that Bush wanted - so were alot of Democrats who fought for weapons inspections and to keep Iran and Syria out of the arena.

[Uncle Joe]

66. Al is also referring to

the concept of preemption as he states here and specifically in this case Iraq.

"Does Saddam Hussein present an imminent threat, and if he did would the United States be free to act without international permission? If he presents an imminent threat we would be free to act under generally accepted understandings of article 51 of the UN Charter which reserves for member states the right to act in self-defense.

If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack? There is a case to be made that further delay only works to Saddam Hussein's advantage, and that the clock should be seen to have been running on the issue of compliance for a decade: therefore not needing to be reset again to the starting point. But to the extent that we have any concern for international support, whether for its political or material value, hurrying the process will be costly. Even those who now agree that Saddam Hussein must go, may divide deeply over the wisdom of presenting the United States as impatient for war.

At the same time, the concept of pre-emption is accessible to other countries. There are plenty of potential imitators: India/Pakistan; China/Taiwan; not to forget Israel/Iraq or Israel/Iran. Russia has already cited it in anticipation of a possible military push into Georgia, on grounds that this state has not done enough to block the operations of Chechen rebels.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.

I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for."

[blm]

67. And THAT is why Iran and Syria were taken off the table. Because it would

be a pre-emptive strike.

[Uncle Joe]

68. You don't think Iraq was a pre-emptive strike? n/t

[blm]

69. As Gore even says in that speech, Bush could go in on the 1991 guidelines.

Legally.

How so many people skip by that important aspect of this has always been a mystery.

[Uncle Joe]

70. I posted that above, but I will bold it here

"Does Saddam Hussein present an imminent threat, and if he did would the United States be free to act without international permission? If he presents an imminent threat we would be free to act under generally accepted understandings of article 51 of the UN Charter which reserves for member states the right to act in self-defense.

The keyword here is imminent, do you believe Saddam posed an imminent threat?

[blm]

71. We ALL were on that page - the point is still that Bush could've gone in

LEGALLY with the 1991 guidelines, just as Al points out in other parts of his speech.

[Uncle Joe]

73. As is apparent from the rest of Al's speech,

he did not believe it was imminent, even I did not believe it was imminent. On the contrary Al thought it would hurt our fight against the terrorists that attacked us. Too many of Bush's assertions had already shown to be false. The people that attacked us were not from Iraq. We have the ability to nuke Iraq back to the stone age, and we were afraid of them being an imminent threat?

[blm]

74. Of course we didn't - none of us did. But Al states a fact that Bush HAD

the legal cover to go in already. The IWR prevented him from moving on Iran and Syria and forced him to allow weapon inspections first.

[Uncle Joe]

75. Actually Al says the United States, or any other nation, not Bush

has the legal cover of the right of self defense in the case of an imminent attack.

"Does Saddam Hussein present an imminent threat, and if he did would the United States be free to act without international permission? If he presents an imminent threat we would be free to act under generally accepted understandings of article 51 of the UN Charter which reserves for member states the right to act in self-defense."

[blm]

76. The 1991 res was not about self-defense, it was about COMPLIANCE with

the terms of the truce and the UN guidelines for Iraq with the US being the main enforcer.


>>>>>>>
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, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration's thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change.

Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.

The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its gravity.
>>

[Bandit]

21. You obviously know nothing of Gore's history

Just do a little research and your questions will be answered. You do know that Gore was considered the most Moral and Credible man in Congress before the GOP did their dirty work don't you?

[blm]

30. Actually, Gore has moved left on foreign policy issues in recent years.

If you want him judged by his HISTORIC record, I think you won't see the same man as today.


Here's a glimpse from when he first ran for Pres:

http://www.turnipseed.net/atlanconst.htm

[NYCGirl]

3. You haven't been paying attention the past 5 years. The real Al Gore

is here.

[iamthebandfanman]

49. thatll happen!

the true person comin' outa yah as a politician...
when uve been abandoned by ur own party and thrown a cookie for ur good job n told to move along please...it can tend to change ya i suppose.
i think he got a dose of that good ole elitism and back hand deals that robbed him of his presidency and said , 'no sir, i dont like it'.

[TwentyFive]

5. The Clinton hate is totally unjustied. The Clintons WIN elections!

Clinton held back the conservative onslaught for 8 years. He got 2 left of center SCJ, plus thousands of well qualified judges into Federal couts.

Bill has done more to advance Democratic causes (left and center) then all the liberals combined.

Why they hate him...I do not know.

[BuddyYoung]

6. Bill has done more to advance Democratic causes (left and center) ...

What Democratic causes are you referring to?

[doc03]

8. I would say yes and no to that one about Clinton

advancing democratic causes. Yes Clinton was a good President in his first term, but he let us all down when he couldn't keep his zipper up. He gave Limbaugh and the other Wingnuts cause to say "We told you so", and his second term was paralyzed because of the BJ scandal. If it wasn't for Clinton's lack of control Al Gore would have won easily in 2000 despite the problems in Florida and Al Gore would probably be in his second term today..

[IndianaGreen]

12. Is that why Big Dog was campaigning for Lieberman today?

Does that say something about Bill's character that he wants Connecticut Democrats to keep Lieberman in the Senate so that he can be kissed again by Bush?

[Samantha]

15. Bill Clinton NEEDED Al Gore on the ticket in 1992 to win

Gore had a reputation for impeccable personal integrity. Clinton had a reputation for being slightly sleazy and thought perhaps not to have foreign policy expertise. Thus, he coaxed Al into joining the ticket to lend credibility to his (Clinton's) run. Many Democrats thought the order on the ticket should have been reversed.

Gore did NOT need Clinton to win in 2000.

That's the difference.

I am not a Clinton hater. I think Bill did a pretty good job, and I think Al helped a lot. But there's really no comparison between the two in terms of raw ability to get things done. Granted, Bill is a better campaigner, a better schmoozer, but after you win, you have to be able to govern....

[AJH032]

25. Gore did not need Clinton?

Most political scientists agree: if Gore had not distanced himself from Clinton in 2000, he would have won the election (beyond the point of stealing).

[Bridget Burke]

35. Which poliitcal scientists?

Are their papers on the web?

[Samantha]

40. That is often said (mostly by Clinton proponents) but it is not true

Gore had specific polling which showed him where using Clinton would be helpful and where it would be hurtful. He left nothing to chance. He did use Clinton in places like Arkansas but he did not use him in other states where Conservative Dems upset over the stains in the Oval Office where defecting to the Republican party, i.e., Tennessee.

There's a big difference between political pundits and Al Gore. Al Gore does his homework rather than repeating talking points. And he was right in his results -- he did win. Clinton is still stung today over this, but at the time, it was publicly discussed and presented as if Clinton understood. He did not. And Begala still brings it up, as well as Carville and others.

[AJH032]

47. you're missing a crucial point

If you remember back to election season in 2000, the main reason, according to the Gore campaign, that Lieberman was selected as VP was to distance the campaign from President Clinton, and it's very likely that Lieberman hurt Gore's campaign (I doubt DU is going to disagree with that). So yes, Gore's attempts to distance himself from Clinton (in the most blatant way, via his VP selection) very well could have hurt him.

[Samantha]

80. Lieberman was put on the ticket for the following reasons:

1. Clinton and Lieberman are very close. Clinton thought Lieberman's being on the ticket would help Gore carry Florida, a crucial state. The Clintons and Liebermans are very close friends and have been for a long time - the Gores and Clintons do not share that same friendship.

2. The secondary reason was that even as Clinton's acknowledged friend, Lieberman stepped out and criticized his indiscretions with Monica. He was one of the first Dems to do so, and commentators remarked that particular criticism would personally hurt Clinton the most. Clinton had been a sort of protege of Lieberman's when he came to Washington. It was the consensus of the strategists that the addition of Lieberman would send a message that the Dems did not condone Clinton's philandering. It was a message most needed.

3. Sorry, I am not in the camp that believes Gore's failure to use Clinton more in the campaign and the perceived "distancing" racked up fewer votes for Gore. I am in the camp that believes Clinton's bad behavior almost cost Gore the popular vote, but Gore's expert handling of the campaign pulled out a victory despite it.

David Mariness has written about Gore's reluctance to run with Clinton in 1992 because of his "sleazy" reputation. Gore privately believed it might have a backlash on his own political future. Clinton made Gore an offer he could not refuse -- a co-presidency. Clinton offered Gore complete authority over eight spheres of interest in which Gore was extremely interested. And that's why Gore, despite his inner reservations, decided to run.

True, many here at DU did not favor the Lieberman selection in 2000, and their opinion of him has only gone downhill from there. Count me in on that. But Gore's strategy for winning the election, knowing that he would lose most of the south (specifically, the "Bible Belt") because of the sexual escapades in the Oval Office and the impeachment debacle, was to carry all of the critical states across the Northeast and West, and FLORIDA. And that's where Lieberman came in ....

Sorry, we probably will just not agree on this subject because we have differing perspectives over who helped whom the most, and who hurt whom the most. Clinton got a lot more from Gore than Gore did from Clinton. And it was his association with Clinton that prevented him from getting enough votes so that the election could not be stolen -- a criticism Clinton-proponents are fond of levying without bothering to examine the true reasons why.

[blm]

46. I will agree with you on that - In fact Gore was the worker bee who got

things DONE because he understood governance better than Clinton, imo.

If Clinton had listened to Gore and dealt with Welfare Reform FIRST as a show of commitment to their platform, they could have succeeded more easily with the Health care plan AFTERWARDS.

But the Hillary-Stephanopoulus contingent were pushing for healthcare first. Gore knew it would only survive in congress if done in the reverse order.

Gore was right - the 1995 GOP takeover would never have happened.

[Greyhound]

77. So did Ryan and 41 and raygun and LBJ and....

So what's the point? He won two elections by being less objectionable and a better liar than the opposition, so what? Did the (former) industrial workers replace their livelihoods, or did they get saddled with more debt for "training" to get the jobs that were off-shored, or are they working for less than half of what they were paid then? Did the unions recover any of the concessions they made in the 80's? Did he reform welfare, or did he just kick the poor to the curb in the hopes that they would just die or go away?

I voted for him twice out of a lack of alternatives, but I don't understand the highly selective recall of reality that goes on with people.

[wyldwolf]

7. Gore was the driving force behind welfare reform and NAFTA

...some say he talked Clinton into welfare reform.

So when has Gore said he feels any different?

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Al Gore speaks from his heart and from his convictions.

'nuff said.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Gore is the real McCoy, the genuine article!

Billary believes only in Billary!

[politicasista]

11. He is faithful to Tipper

I am a moderate liberal too who still likes him.

[AtomicKitten]

13. Al Gore could actually win the presidency - again.

Al Gore comes fully stocked with intelligence and expertise as well as with the fresh promise of a genuinely progressive agenda. He has shown over the last few years that he isn't afraid to step up and say what he thinks, fearlessly, boldly. He came out and supported Howard Dean in 2004. He denounced the immoral and illegal war on Iraq. He spoke forcefully against all of Junior's felonies. And he has evolved, moving ideologically to the left, as I have. He is the only potential contender that gives me a glimmer of hope and excitement and enthusiasm.

I hope that answers your question.

[Cobalt-60]

16. Al's a good guy

I like him.
I voted for him.
I could hang with him.
But he doesn't sell it the way Bill did.
I've always thought Bill Clinton won the election the night he played the sax on the Arsenio show.
Lets have Gore in the cabinet,absolutely!
But if hes the candidate, he needs to attack like a pit bull high on crack!

[Joe Fields]

17. If you don't know, you haven't been paying attention.

Gore is a populist. Clinton is a pragmatist, more than willing to compromise his beliefs, if it will further his political profile.

Clinton is all about politics. He is probably the most brilliant "politician" of our time.

Gore is willing to tackle the real problems that society faces, and has real solutions to those problems.

I suggest you take a closer look at Al Gore. He is, in my opinion, the only viable candidate to even have a remote chance of undoing most of the harm the Bush Admin. has heaped on the world.

[El Fuego]

18. Gore isn't a part of the Clinton politcal machine.

The rift started while they were both in office. As I understand it, by the end of Clinton's term they were functioning totally separate from one another within the administration.

[AlGore-08.com]

20. The question isn't about whether Gore or Clinton "centrist"

If you look at their support or opposition to individual policies, you'll see a lot of overlap between Clinton and Gore. The difference is really about "big picture" issues and strategy.

Clinton still believes that the "triangulation" strategy he used in the 1980s is the only way to win elections. (This ignores the fact that - - hello - - it's not the 1980s anymore.) Clinton and others in the DLC believe that Gore "lost" 2000 due to his non-DLC stands on gun control (Gore is for it), gay rights (again, Gore is for them) and Gore's emphasis on economic populism rather than "family values" (to use an older term).

Gore believes that it's intellectually dishonest (and bad politics) for Democrats not to be economic populists at a time when the rich are getting richer at everyone else's expense. He also believes very strongly that Democrats need to stand for our traditional values on principle, rather than avoiding them or rejecting them. (For Gore, our traditional values include equal rights for gays, as well as women and other minorities.) Additionally, Gore has been a strong proponent of grassroots democracy and media for decades. He was the guiding force behind the Internet; he was responsible for getting free internet service in libraries and schools to reduce the digital divide; he made e-Government a reality; etc. Gore's first speech to MoveOn got the MSM to recognize MoveOn (and to some extent, the 'Netroots) as a legitimate, important political force.

[AJH032]

26. Clinton took those same positions

Clinton was pro-gun control (part of his campaign message, and of course, the Brady Bill), was in favor of gay rights and gays in the military ("dont ask dont tell" was a result of Gingrich) and I actually specifically remember a 1992 campaign speech where he talked about this, and also advocated a populist economic policy in the 1992 election cycle, constantly talking about raising taxes on the wealthy (which of course, he did do).

So why would Clinton believe Gore lost the election because of positions he took himself?!

[Guaranteed]

22. Al Gore has shown real, solid leadership over the past 4 years.

Neither of the Clintons have.

That's the difference.

[SaveElmer]

23. Nothing really...all great people...

Who have done more for this country than every Republican in the 20th century combined (except TR)

[Outlier]

24. Hey don't forget Ike

Granted he flipped a coin to be a repug, but he did get us out of korea, warned of the military industrial complex, did nothing to screw up an excellent economy, started the interstate highway system, and planned coordinated and led the largest amphibous assault in history. Also, Earl Warren was his supreme court appointment.

I like Ike too.

[SaveElmer]

28. Well...

He wan't a Republican yet when he did those things...at least publically, but yes Ike was a cut above the rest...

Too good for the Republican Party at least

[Hippo_Tron]

50. Ike was a Republican when he did those things

Because he did then when he was President. To tarnish his record a bit, he did say that appointing Earl Warren was "The biggest damn fool mistake I ever made". But Ike is certainly proof that Republicans back in the 1950's are nothing like Republicans now. Barry Goldwater is also pretty good proof as well.

[martymar64]

62. He also helped overthrow the gov'ts of Iran and Guatamala

n/t

[Uncle Joe]

27. Al Gore empowered you to ask this question for all the world to see,

when he championed the internet, thereby democratizing information. He was roundly trashed and slandered by the MCM for working to give this gift to the people.

He was the first political leader to warn the people about the looming catastrophe of global warming.

I don't care what label you use to categorize Al; conservative, moderate, centrist, progressive or liberal, to me he is a world class leader, who sincerely cares about the people, our democracy and the rule of law.

[Totally Committed]

31. Ethics?

Just saying.

Billary is unelectable, too, but I think Gore would have a chance. People seem quite willing to give him a second chance.

TC

[ecstatic]

32. mainstream Americans probably like 'Billary' better

That team represents a cozy period in our recent history.

I'm just saying, Gore was able to do and say a lot of things recently but only because he was not an elected official. In this sense, he is sort of like an untested Democrat. Afterall, can a man really change that much in 6 years? Will his so called changes of opinion stick?

[NYCGirl]

33. Six years in politics is a LIFETIME. As far as sticking, he was

saying this a few years ago:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/06/29/gore-retreat.htm

[earth mom]

34. Gore has ethics-while both Clintons are HOs who

will do ANYTHING to win including sucking up to * & Co. I am SO damn sick of greedy unethical whoring bastards like them who are running rampant in D.C. and destroying this country!!! :puke:


Also, Gore seems more left of center these days. I'd rather him or someone like RFK jr. run for office. We really need a hero! :bounce:

[FreeStateDemocrat]

36. He's not a chicken shit hawk and he has strong moral character for a start

[Cocoa]

37. and the Clinton hatred falls disproportionately on Hillary

a related question to your very good question is why is Clinton the beloved "Big Dog" where Hillary is so reviled?

[leesa]

38. He ditched the DLC and became a human being again.

[AJH032]

39. no

Gore is still a member of the DLC. I guess they're not all so bad, huh?

[NYCGirl]

41. Better let the DLC know that. They jumped all over his head for endorsing

Dean in 2004.

[AJH032]

42. just because he's a member

doesn't mean he's immune from attacks. Democrats attack each other. Republicans attack each other. Business partners attack each other. Committee members attack each other. Those within every administration attack each other, etc... (and of course, by attack I mean verbal attack).

In fact, their "jumping all over his head" solidifies the fact that he's a member, because if he weren't, why would they care if he endorsed Dean or not?

[NYCGirl]

44. They attack LOTS of people who aren't members. That proves nothing at

all. The fact that he endorsed Howard Dean says a great deal.

[AJH032]

45. um..okay

Even if they do attack others, you're only responding to the footnote of my post. What I was saying was actually to disprove what YOU implied: that Gore isn't a member of the DLC because he was attacked by them. What we can only logically conclude from this exchange is that who attacks who does not indicate membership in the DLC, as they attack both members and non-members, k?

[NYCGirl]

48. Start with this:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2000/08/kuttner-r-08-21.html

The major giveaway was the endorsement of Dean.

Many (in fact the majority) of Gore's major speeches these past 5 years were sponsored under the auspices of Moveon.org, the organization the DLC branded as far left moonbats.

And this:

In endorsing Dean, Gore did more than signal support for the chaotic, democratized nature of the campaign. For a wonk like Gore, the endorsement of Dean -- the DLC’s bête noire during the 2004 primaries -- was an embrace of the new “it” Democrat. If the DLC’s “New Democrats,” led by Clinton and Gore, were the buzzworthy wing of the Democratic Party in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the 2004 election ushered in their successors, led by Dean.

Call them the New New Democrats, MoveOn Democrats, or whatever you want. They were the liberal response to Clinton’s triangulation and Bush’s ascension. Gleefully pugilistic, fiercely opposed to the Iraq War, deeply distrustful of a “corporate media” they believe screwed Gore specifically and Democrats generally, and proudly unapologetic about the progressive agenda, they found their first champion in Dean and, in Gore, their most surprising convert.

Gore, after all, had been one of only a handful of House Democrats to support the first Gulf War. In 2000, he slammed Bill Bradley’s expansive health-care plan from the right, spoke in dusty generalities, and reduced liberalism to a “lockbox.” He was considered so mealy-mouthed and corporatized that Ralph Nader’s lefty insurgency gained genuine momentum with a message based mainly around the assertion that Gore and Bush were indistinguishable.

So it was a shock when, in 2002, he dispensed with the equivocating and endorsed a full-blown single-payer solution to health care, going further than even Bradley had dared. When he unleashed a blistering assault on the proposed invasion of Iraq, decried the corporatization of American media, and endorsed Dean, it became clear that this was not the Gore of yore.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11299

Al Gore issued a statement on Saturday to rebut the week of criticism he faced from the DLC crowd and his former running-mate, Joe Lieberman. The A.P. is moving a story on the statement with the headline "Gore Denies He's Anti-Business," but the statement is actually a defense of his "the people, not the powerful" rhetoric.

"Standing up for the people, not the powerful, was the right choice in 2000. In fact, it is the ground of the Democratic Party's being, our meaning and our mission," Gore said in the statement. "The suggestion from some in our party that we should no longer speak that truth, especially at a time like this, strikes me as bad politics and wrong in principle." He added that going into the 2002 midterm elections, "A major correction is needed in the course of our nation."

http://thescrum.blogspot.com/2002_07_28_thescrum_archive.html


People change, AJH032. Interestingly, the same DLC that was so quick to lacerate Gore after the 2000 election (and wrongly stating that his populism lost the election — fact was that the last two weeks in which he really let loose his populist self is when he started moving ahead) is now so quick to claim him as one of their own. Sometimes you don't really know what you have until it's gone, right?

[AJH032]

51. still waiting

for anything to indicate that Gore is no longer a member of the DLC, because that's the ONLY claim I made in my original post (in case you forgot, here's what I said: "Gore is still a member of the DLC. I guess they're not all so bad, huh?"). Just because he's liberal, doesn't mean he can't be a registered member of any group he wants to be a part of.

All you've shown so far is that he's more liberal than the DLC may like him to be.

[NYCGirl]

52. People who aren't in elected office cannot be members of the DLC. NT

[AJH032]

54. show me

really, I'm curious where you got this information.

[NYCGirl]

55. Someone here, I believe it might have been blm, told me. You have any

proof that he is (since you were the one to claim it)? Has he been to any meetings? Made any speeches for them? Carry a little card around in his wallet? Have a tattoo?

[AJH032]

57. post #56 nt

[Capn Sunshine]

61. Not true

I am/was a member , and never held elective office.

However, I DID work for Clinton-Gore, and shoveled a couple of armored trucks worth of dough their way.

I'm pretty sure Al Gore is a member like I am : nominally, for access purposes, but really opposed to all the awful tripe they are pushing.

If Al wasn't on the outs with the DLC I'm sure they would have pitched the hell out of his movie. He wasn't mentioned in the famous Hyde Park declaration ( Clinton was) and He endorsed Howard Dean, over their aghast protests. Besides, I was present at a couple of meetings in 2000 where they raised all their objections to Al's "People first " campaign, essentially gutting it. That was the start of my disengagement from them.

Don't look for Al to give any keyntes at any DLC functions in the near future.

[blm]

65. The DLC didn't publically LIST its members unless they were in office..

I have never understood why, but, it's one of the peculiar things that you could never get into their past membership lists or the lists that included non-officeholders.

It may be that none of the DU researchers were able to crack into the right page at the site, but, if it was a public list, why make it so difficult for people to reach that page? It's a mystery to me.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. I don't think that they have a membership roster...

Unless you are an elected official. Since Gore isn't an elected official anymore, he isn't on a DLC roster. So the question about his DLC ties would probably be on the basis of whether he is currently participating in any activities with the DLC or any statements that he has made on the subject of the DLC recently.

[AJH032]

56. here

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

[NYCGirl]

58. So is that an up to date list or an old one?

Edited to add:

I do love what that list says about Lieberman:

D-CT hates "Mortal Kombat"

:rofl:

[AJH032]

59. there are some clues

If only currently elected officials can be members, then Gore would have lost his membership in January of 2001. Notice, though, there are several dates in the right-hand column ("Known for") that exceed 2001. In fact, on the bottom reads: "Copyright ©2006 Soylent Communications." That should put to rest any doubt on its currentness.

And yeah, I like that Lieberman comment too.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Consider your source

Under "Known For" for Joe Lieberman it says "D-CT hates Mortal Kombat". The whole article is biased against the DLC. And at the top of that table it doesn't say "Current members of the DLC", it just lists people who, according to this particular source, are presumably affiliated with the DLC in one way or another. Just because they put Al Gore on that list doesn't mean that he is currently affiliated with the DLC. Again, I don't think that the DLC has an official roster of members, except for elected officials.

[madfloridian]

72. There is a lot of info here at DU about their founding.

I believe Gore, like Clinton, was part of the founding of it. I know there are threads and threads about the founding.

Gore set himself apart from that group long ago.

I guess I could do a search for you, but maybe later. It is hard to search the archives here for 2005 unless the search terms etc. are just right.

The war was the thing. That was what brought them out into the open, and it happened in early 2003 in two speeches given to CA Democratic parties.

Until Dean stood up and said what he wanted to know was why were so many Democrats voting to support Bush's unilateral war on Iraq, few of us were really aware of the group.

I have many pages saved. You seem very hard to convince about Al Gore. He was DLC, now he is not. Dean was DLC, now he is not. However both are probably still quite moderate in their views. They just believe in standing up and speaking out.

[Robbins]

78. Gore

He Is more honorable,and decent than Clinton. Gore has never been In the pocket of the Corporations like the Clintons. Corporate control of the party has done nothing to help us. Gore voluntered for
service. He never so service because his father was a pro civil rights and anti Vietnam war Senator
who was target by defeat by the Nixon White House. Gore Is a Economic Populist. He goes back to the
Rossevelt ways of believing the Government should help the people not Bush's tax cuts for the rich,and forgetting the people. Yes Gore did support NAFTA but I suspect now he would not be so much
In favor of it. Remember Lieberman critized Gore's populist message In 2000. Gore has a true wife and Partner with Tipper(yes I disagree with the warning lables on records) and yes when he was elected to congress he was more conservative but because of Tipper(and rasing 4 daughters) he moved more to the middle. Another thing with regards to gay rights Is the Clintons asvised Kerry to
support Gay Marrage ban. I believe Gore would never had done that.I find Gore more the guy you could talk to(anyone who watched the Original Star Trek Series,Futurama,and the X-Men films has good tastes) and he slightly move to the right to stop Bradley In primarys allowed nader to claim
no different between him,and Bush. Gore was right on Iraq. His speaking out on Iraq,the Illegal
spying,and now Global warming Is so different than eather Clinton. Gore's endorse of Dean,and his refusal to campagin for Lieberman shows he Is willing to make up for his big mistake of picking
him as his running mate.

[Dr Fate]

79. He opposed the war before it was cool. (Clinton still supports it)

And he is not afraid to be passionate about issues- and he sticks to his guns.

I see plenty of differences.