I am about to be controversial. Has anyone been listening to AL Gore?

[saracat]

I really respect his efforts on behalf of the environment and his anti-war stance but the guy is just as boring as he was in 2000. I swear I need to get my ears examined. People called Kerry boring and I think most of the time he is a terrific speaker. Gore is a monotone and still has a wooden personality. He is now being treated like the second coming of Christ on DU. I find it really frustrating that he is being claimed as the 2008 candidate!
The hypocrisy of these people is amazing! Gore hid for two years after 2000 and did absolutely NOTHING to contest the election while Kerry continues to battle for us as a Senator and fight the election as best as can be in court! Yet they say Kerry did nothing. Maybe he should have hid , gotten fat and grown a beard! That was productive. It was years before Gore even criticized Bush. He never even spoke out to defend Kyoto and Kerry did.

And this SNL appearance takes the cAke. It wasn't "brilliant' and it was typical Gore, "wooden!"

These people are rewriting history. I remember 2000 and many voters didn't like either candidate. Both sides were saying they were holding their noses and voting party line.People respected Gore but they didn't like him. I am afraid if the lefty freepers get their way, we will lose because only they will find Gore charismatic!

[beachmom]

1. Oh phew. I thought you were moving over to Gore!

No, I like Gore, but he is far and away not even close to the speaking ability of Kerry. In fact, of the main people running for prez in '08 (or at least being speculated to be running), Kerry is the best speaker. My Mom, who doesn't want Kerry in '08, watched the Dissent speech (I made her), and she said she was getting goose bumps. After the speech, she said she wanted him to be a statesman in the Senate and talked about the Passion he had. That's right -- Kerry and passion. Obviously, I disagree with my Mom on '08 (that young people remark by Hillary was just godawful -- I'm still livid about it, and REALLY think we need to seriously think of an alternative to her), but the fact that she was so moved by his speech is a very good sign.

Gore has been a good public servant, but he's not the same as Kerry, because Kerry was in dangerous combat in Vietnam, lost friends, still feels pain from that time, and is willing to put himself out there to get his message across. I know that Gore feels passionately about the Environment, but he never had to suffer because of global warming -- it's more an intellectual thing for him.

[karynnj]

2. I find Gore hard to listen to

so I've mostly read his speeches. I totally agree with you. The people on DU seem to have memories that are very short. Most of them seem to not remember anything from the 2000 election. They have out of whole cloth created the Al Gore of their dreams. In some ways, it's better not to challange them with reality. I just hope the flurry of interest does pull him in. The real man would lose the primary - and he seemed really hurt by 2000.

Kerry is an inspiring speaker when people hear him, Gore really isn't.
Kerry is great on MTP, better than anyone I've seen.
Kerry was by far the better debater.

The strangest thing is when they say Gore is visionary and Kerry isn't. Gore is great on global warming, but he was pretty prosaic on everything else. Kerry was visionary - even in 1971 - the end of his speech was incredible and visionary - suggesting (as a 27 year old) a different way to interact in the world. I know he had the advantage of a father who spoke of some of these ideas, but to have synthesized what he got from his dad, his own experinces and ideas and things he read is absolutely amazing.

There is also no way to watch the Emerson feed without seeing that he is charismatic. Those kids were awake and enjoying every word he said.

[ginnyinWI]

3. Emerson tape?

Where? Was it on tv? :shrug:

[karynnj]

5. unfortunately no - I changed it to feed which I should have said

Sorry for confusion - Note to myself: there's a reason to proof what you write.

[ginnyinWI]

10. s'okay--I suspected that was what you meant.

I have read the transcript, so that's something at least.

[_dynamicdems]

4. My take on Gore is that he's found his niche.

Not everybody is meant to be the President of the United States. Al Gore was robbed in 2000 and it was a crushing defeat to his supporters, myself included. I loved Al Gore and still do. It hurt for a long time that he all but vanished from the scene for years. Still, he's someone I admire greatly. As hard as it is to admit this, because I truly think of Al Gore as a great American, I don't think he is meant to be President. Seeing him with his beard and wearing tweeds, I saw another aspect of Al Gore that was all but buried during his years as VP. He's not a politician at heart. He's the consummate advocate, an educator and an activist. I don't think he'd be happy or shine as brightly as President.

I never thought his speaking style was electrifying. He was more about truth and honor and being straight-forward than he was about being entertaining. There was an earnestness is his speeches that appealed to me and still does. That said, I do have him on tape narrating "Earth in the Balance" and listening to his voice puts me asleep every single time I play it. But I continue to play it nonetheless.

Now that people are pitting two heroes of mine against each other, I have had to think hard and to consider which man would be the one I would choose to be my President. That man is John Kerry. He was born to be President. He didn't choose it anymore than he chose to have thick hair or to be over six feet tall. He has a calling to politics that I honestly do not think Al Gore has. Day after day, I've followed his work and been astounded by his schedule. For any other person, how he lives would constitute torture. He lives and breathes what he believes and what he preaches. I've never seen anyone so driven by so many causes. After the crushing defeat of 2004, John Kerry did not lie down in defeat or go off and lick his wounds. He stood up, rising stronger and more determined like an avenging angel wielding a sword of fire against the oppression that has a stranglehold on our country. Nobody on this earth is better suited to be President than John Kerry is today.

[sandnsea]

6. Gore has found his niche

Yeah, I like that. "consummate advocate, an educator and an activist"

And everything else you said too!!

[politicasista]

7. I agree. He has found his niche.

Gore and Kerry are both my favorites. What I don't like is that these so-called new Gore supporters ignore everything that happened before or during 2000. As saracat has said, Gore was labeled "wooden" and "boring" by the media. Some will remember his "sighing" in the debate than what he talked about. I also don't like how these "new" supporters are using the hype to bash the Senator just to promote him. Do they really think that they are helping him?

I couldn't vote in 2000, but one of my public friends (not the ones I talked about of late) strongly considered voting for Nader (cause of a high teacher pay proposal) and that Gore (like they said about Kerry in 2004,) was "the lesser of two evils." I was very disappointed over 2000 and the Florida recount. I felt Gore got screwed by the Supreme Court and the state of Tennessee. I also even heard that he was invited to speak at my alma mater, but shunned them at the last minute.

What was also unfair during the 04 election was that Tavis Smiley wanted to ask Kerry how come he didn't step in and join the Congressional Black Caucus and challenge the Florida election when Tavis didn't remember that Gore asked no senator to do so (right or wrong? :shrug:) (from F-9/11).

Anyway the last I heard was that Gore was trying to mend some fences in TN. Don't know how that came out cause the media only covered local speeches and that's it. Another friend hopes Gore will run again cause he is a "smart man." We didn't get around to talking about Kerry though.


I like Gore when he is strong and angry, but it's an insult to him and others to jump on his bandwagon and ignore everything else about his political past. I heard Cindy Sheehan and joined in too, I thought she was a libertarian?

[k j]

40. What dynamicdems said...

I fought hard for Al Gore in the 2000 Selection and while a part of me would love to see him take his (imo) rightful place in the White House, I think he's found his place in the world and I applaud him for defining himself, instead of allowing others to do the job. Also, re: running again, his pick of Lieberman instead of Kerry as VP in 2000 still sticks in my craw.

One of the things I most admired about Bill Clinton's run was his choice of Veep... and I thought Gore showed a lack of integrity by not choosing the most qualified man at the time, and someone who could have easily taken the watch afterward... John Kerry.

[paulk]

8. the thing that worries me about Gore -

At the time of the 2000 election, I was working with three other people - two Republicans , one Democrat. They HATED Gore. Absolutely despised him. No argument I presented in his favor made the least headway. Two ended up voting for Bush, the other for Nader. Two of these three voted for Kerry in 2004.

That's what worries me about a Gore run - I don't see the "new" Gore being able to overcome the sliming he got in 2000. I don't see him winning over any of those fellows I worked with.

[saracat]

9. Yup. That is part of my point!

[ginnyinWI]

11. Since he hasn't taken a lot of stands on recent issues,

it's easy for people to think he is simply perfect. I think I'm going to start asking some of the Gore supporters to tell me what his stands are on this or that--just to see if they are really informed or if it is pure and idealistic hero-worship.

What I've seen lately is a patriot who really is furious with * over what's come down in the last five years, but I'd need a little more info to make a true judgement.

[ProSense]

12. Exactly! n/t

[blm]

13. I actually LIKE the way Gore speaks - what bothers me is not Gore but his

supporters who don't mind altering the facts of history when they compare him with Kerry.

I absolutely dig that Gore has lurched leftward where he probably always wanted to be as a more natural fit, but there are ALOT of years where he was on the wrong side of history and not exactly true to his principles. If he was, he would have been a real lefty long ago.

[Mass]

14. I like both of them. I prefer Kerry, but could support Gore with

enthusiasm if he is the nominee. I think that both of them learned a lot during the campaign and could be great candidates. I agree that the Gore who ran in 2000 was wooden and arrogant, but I think he sincerely changed (I liked the SNL appearance), as I think Kerry will listen less to consultants and be more himself if he runs again.

However, I have two problems with the Gore story:

- one is the same as you. Some of his supporters are totally unreasonnable concerning Gore and what he can do. I agree totally with that (with the caveat that sometimes we are like that concerning Kerry and it concerns me - not you sacarat, but some other people, myself included sometimes).

- the other one is that I would like once and for all that Gore says whether it is possible that he is going to run or not. I know it would not stop some to say he would run even if he gave a clear and definitive position on this (not that he is definitively going to run, but whether he is considering a run or not). His joke about "being a recovering politician, who could relapse" drove me crazy. This reminds me too much of 2004, where he waited very long before decided whether he would run or not. This is definitively not good in the current climate in the Democratic Party. With everybody attacking everybody anonymously, we dont need shadow candidate.

[blm]

18. One of the problems with Gore is that HE CAN be easily pushed into things

and even if they go against his basic principles. Which really annoys me when some DUers say Gore is principled fighter while Kerry is a careful politician.

Here's some insight into how Gore can be manipulated by others to do the wrong thing and NOT the principled thing.

an article from the Atlanta Constitution from back then:

http://www.seedshow.com/atlantaconstart.htm


The Atlanta Constitution, printed Friday, November 27, 1987

Swing voters likely to go with new voters

By Tom Turnipseed

The Democratic Leadership Council, sometimes called the Democratic Leisure Class or the DLC, has been sending editorial writers of Southern newspapers articles and “swing voter” research based on the views of a narrow sampling of white, middle-class suburbanites in the South who voted for Reagan in 1984.

The DLC contends the Democrats must move to the right to win the Southern suburban vote, the South and the nation in the 1988 presidential elections. The analysis seems plausible until you realize it’s frozen in a political trend time frame of circa 1984.

The DLC is basically a reactive group of Southern conservatives whose answer to the Reagan landslide of 1984 has been to form a well- financed public relations staff to influence the Democrats to – to me – too much of Reagan’s agenda. Conservative Sam Nunn of Georgia was wooed by the DLC to be its 1988 presidential candidate, but the DLC was shunned by Nunn who saw his home state elect its most liberal representative, Wyche Fowler, to the Senate in 1986.

Nunn and a key DLC organizer, Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia, opted out of the presidential race. But the DLC has finally found its man in young Sen. Al Gore, Jr. of Tennessee, whose campaign has been floundering with only two to four percent voter approval in the crucial early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The DLC convinced Gore to regionalize his efforts to Southern states with Super Tuesday primaries by appealing to the 1984 Reaganite “swing voters.” So Gore flip-flopped from his progressive voting record and abruptly adopted some of Reagan’s militaristic views on contra aid, the invasion of Grenada, and the Persian Gulf military build-up.

The media has hyped Gore’s rightward swing aimed at the DLC’s mythical suburban “swing vote” of 1984, but has failed to factor in the drastically diminished state of Reagan’s credibility with voters in 1987-88. Reagan put his credibility on the line in 1986 Senate elections with vigorous personal involvement. His candidates were defeated by a revitalized traditional Democratic base of blue-collar workers, blacks, farmers and small businessmen in every key Southern race.

The 1986 elections preceded more recent Reagan credibility crunches like Iran/Contragate, the stock market crash and Bork-Ginsburg. The electorial advantage of Gore’s switching to Reagan’s positions on contra aid, etc. – minority positions according to polls in the South and everywhere else – is questionable. Republicans are running on Super Tuesday at the same time, in the same states, advocating the same positions. How many pro-contra aid voters will be left for Gore in the Democratic primaries?
>>>>>>>>>

[sandnsea]

19. Interesting

So. How about, the "traditional base", and the "liberal idealists". Could we build a vision around that? Those two specific memes. A vision and vote block that would counter the "swing vote" myth?

[karynnj]

21. Pro- Contras????

Ok, this bothers me a lot. By 1988, the contras were known to be right wing thugs. He had to know that Kerry was investigated them bringing drugs into the country - so unless he thought the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was a "randy nutcase", this is immoral.

Supporting the Contras earlier was at least possibly without knowledge of their true character.

[blm]

24. The biggest problem is what Robert Parry said in his article, Clinton/Gore

administration's decision to CLOSE THE BOOKS is what allowed the Bush cabal to strengthen and grow - and neither one of them will say a damn thing about what they did.

Clinton's book has a measly paragraph saying how he wanted Bush to have a peaceful retirement, and NOT ONE WORD about BCCI, at all - and Gore has said NOTHING - and I highly doubt there are any plausible reasons to be had at this point.

[karynnj]

35. That Clinton and Gore agreed with funding

the Contras may well be the real reason for not pushing the investigation - they didn't think it was as big a deal as Kerry thought.

I still have read less than 50 pages in Bill Clinton's book and this is highly atypical for me - but I just end up angry at his egotism.

[demdiva]

15. grrrrr..............

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2629957

[politicasista]

17. A solution..

Click on that tiny box next to those type of threads and hide them. It will save your sanity for sure. :hi:

[demdiva]

20. :) Go Cubs!!!!

[politicasista]

16. Do you think that the recent Gore hype.....

is used as a distraction from Bush, the GOP Congress and 2006? Or is it just that people see Kerry as a threat cause they feel like they'll be "let down" again? :shrug:

[karynnj]

22. It seems to be coming from the liberal press,

so I don't think it is from the GOP to distract people from Bush or Congress. I don't think it's intentionally to ignore 2006. I think it's the short attention span of the liberal media and the fact that they are interested in people not issues.

I honestly don't think it is against Kerry as much as against other people. The main affect at this point in time would be to divert money from a candidate they fear could blow up into a threat to Al Gore, who they see as not really capable of winning the nomination. (He did almost nothing in 1988, didn't run in 1992 because he thought Bush would win and wanted to go for 1996. In 2000, the party convinced everybody but Bradley not to run, saying it was Gore's turn. I liked my Senator better, but he turned out to be pretty bad as a candidate.) Kerry has his own money and can raise more,so if anything, if this is what happening it could ultimately help Kerry. Oddly it could hurt Feingold, Clark most in that the super lefties have moved between the three. It could also hurt Edwards.

I think the simultaneous pathetic Kerry don't run and Kerry was a lousy candidate really show little understanding of who Kerry is. I doubt they factor into his decision. The odd thing is you could hypothesize that this action puts the real field down to Hillary, Warner, Gore and Kerry.

An optimistic scenario:

After a few debates, Gore may implode because he will have to have positions on everything and there will likely be some negative campaigning (not by Kerry). I may be wrong but after 2000 I don't think he can take it. At that point there is only one anti-Hillary and if Warner is still in he will take some of the right. Mydd and Kos aside, the left given those choices has to pick Kerry. Even with Gore there the only genuine liberal is Kerry.

[TayTay]

23. The Kerry don't run stuff will have zero effect.

Sen. Kerry takes his own counsel on this stuff. He's a weeble, he'll run if he wants to, no matter what anyone says. That's seems to be his style.

[MH1]

25. I liked the SNL gig but otherwise I agree.

I like and respect Al Gore immensely. But he really isn't the greatest speaker and I don't feel he's improved as much since 2000 as the Gore contingent on DU seems to want to think.

I'll have to admit, I was LMAO watching the SNL thing. But the whole woodenness thing was part of the gag, and my finding the SNL skit funny doesn't make me feel any better about Gore as a public speaker.

That said, I thought Gore was hugely better than * in 2000, and if people in this country evaluated presidential candidates on any intelligent basis, the 2000 election wouldn't have been close enough to steal. Just like 2004.

I think Kerry is a better candidate and I do think he would be a better president for my tastes, but I would be very, very happy to have a President Gore.

As for hypocrisy and DU....hi, welcome to DU! ;-)

[JI7]

26. he most likely is not going to run

if he was seriously considering it he would say he was considering it rather than that line he gave to that group recently. especially with someone with a major profile as Hillary running it would be important for him to let everyone know he is seriously considering so people can get on his side.

i do find that "new Gore" stuff kind of annoying but i can understand people's reasons for saying it since he did things like pick Lieberman and these people themselves probably voted for Nader so rather than admit their own faults they have to push this Gore 2.0 stuff.

personally i would like for Gore to get into the race. i also don't have a problem with Gore being "wooden" or whatever else people say.

the morons who use Gore to bash Kerry are pretty scummy though. it's one reason i think Gore would run, so these asses could get behind him and show us they really support him rather than just bringing him up to bash Kerry.

[Skinner]

27. I apologize that this post was moved.

That was a mistake.

[wisteria]

30. Thank you! n/t

[_dynamicdems]

32. Thank you, Skinner! You have restored my faith in DU!

:yourock:

[sandnsea]

33. Thank you

I must say I'm surprised, very pleasantly surprised. :)

[saracat]

34. Thank you so much Skinner!

Now I don't feel so looney!

[JohnKleeb]

28. Well here y'all go

I haven't heard Gore speak lately but I think people are going to be surprised when they realize that Gore isn't the firebreathing liberal they think he's become. i agree about the revisionist history that many people do to suit their own purpoess. Either way I see Gore and Kerry should they both run as having a tough battle because their opponents will definely make fact of the fact that they have been run before.

[TayTay]

29. Saracet

You were right!

[ginnyinWI]

31. it got a recommend while it was gone!

:rofl:

[fedupinBushcountry]

36. He also left people hanging

on if he was going to run or not in 2004. To me if he really wanted to be president he would have run again in '04. I don't believe that recovering politician nonsense. He was acting as a prior politician when he endorsed Dean.


I voted for Gore in '00, and did not agree at all with his VP pick, I thought it was totally the wrong choice, and I think he loss many votes to Nader because of that decision. He even lost in his own state, now what does that say. But I voted for him because I did not want Bush and especially Cheney.

What I see happening on DU is the bandwagon jumping again, first to Clark, then Feingold and now Gore. Who will be next? :crazy:

[JohnKleeb]

37. I dunno

He still may run. Nixon didn't run in 64 after running in 60 however different things for different people. If Gore runs I think it will not because of him running on his own choice but because of him running after being drafted.

[fedupinBushcountry]

38. Sorry Kleeb

He was being drafted in '04, and he said no. I was for Gore to run again in '04, because I believed he deserved that right after the debacle in '00. He has every right to run, as does Kerry, but I don't think he will, just as he didn't in '04.

[JohnKleeb]

39. Don't be sorry

I am skeptical of where Gore stands now honestly anyway. I intially supported him too because I felt the same way after all it was so close. I didn't know people tried to draft him in 2004 though. Either way I think you're right about his endorsement of Dean. I think when I thikn about that endorsement it helped solidified in my mind at least that Dean was far from being the Grassroots anti establishment candidate, as much as Gore's strongest supporters have tried to make him out to be a victim of the Democratic establishment, he is still the one who chose Lieberman and was after all once the second most important person in the country as Vice President to Clinton. I don't feel he will run again either/ In fact I think exempting Kerry and Edwards and maybe Kucinich or Sharpton that our field in 2008 will be totally new. Also whoever the VP pick is will likely be someone who isn't running for president, Kerry picking Edwards was an exception to the rule, not the rule.

[karynnj]

41. There are some on DU-P saying he was told by insiders not to

which makes no sense as there was no one else being pushed in the 2002 -2003 time frame.

[JohnKleeb]

42. Gore is an insider

So that theory makes as much sense as the gays, the military industrial complex, anti Castro Cuban exiles, Clay Shaw, Clay Shaw, and Clay Shaw but NOT Lee Harvey Osawld all killed Jack Kennedy. Sorry the movie JFK is perhaps the most interesting bullshit I've seen.

[karynnj]

43. I totally agree

I think the Atlanta Constitution article would absoluely blow the minda of some people there.

Gore was the DLC backed candidate in 1988 - and he got extremely little support. He likely would never have won a nomination without being selected as the VP. What bothers me about these people is that if little 10 year old Kerry would have written something for school - they would hold him to those views. But the ignore that Gore was for funding the Contras and for the first Gulf war. What he hasn't done is explain a world view that he currently believes in. My concern is that I have no idea where he stands on most things - and if it's close to where he was in the past I would not consider voting for him in the primaries even if Kerry didn't run.

[wildflowergardener]

44. I like

I like both Gore and Kerry and would be happy if either ran again - I'm not sure who I'd choose, honestly if it were between the two of them. It's hard to be very much for a candidate and then suddenly dislike them. If I saw the two debate, it would probably be an easier decision. Luckily I don't need to make any decision right now.

Meg

[blm]

46. Most of us liked and supported both - we just don't like it when people

resort to lying in an effort to boost Gore over Kerry. That requires lying to add positive spin to Gore's actual record while ignoring the facts about Kerry's actual record.

Honestly, in a debate, the new Gore would probably do as well as Kerry, but, still be unable to surpass him, mainly because I think Gore could get tied up when his recent outreaches to the left are compared to his actual record in government and his stances from 2000. He has had the luxury of no one questioning him enough to contrast the two.

Of the two, Kerry's had the consistent, steadier progressive record. And Gore's come down on the wrong side too many times when it comes to government corruption. He never sought to expose it while he had the power to do so.

[globalvillage]

45. Al said at Cannes yesterday

that he will NOT run in '08.