To tell you the truth I felt Gore fell flat last night on Countdown.

[jsamuel]

He is my second choice, I like him, and he has great ideas, but man... my wife was falling asleep. He completely dodged any Cindy Sheehan question, which isn't all that bad, except his dodges were horrible. It was hard to listen to him. He said one of the reasons he may not run is because he isn't a very good politician. Unfortunately, I have to agree with that. I think Gore could have the most impact on the race by playing like he is going to run until August or September, then endorse a candidate. I will watch tonight as well and see how he does.

[NYCGirl]

1. I don't think Cindy Sheehan is a "yes or no" question — what she did is a personal

decision and what another individual thinks about it is their opinion.

[jsamuel]

sure, but his answer to the question was to talk in abstract terms

not anything really having to do with the situation

[NYCGirl]

10. Ms. Sheehan's quote talked about a country "which cares more about who will be the next American

Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months" — that's what Gore was addressing.

[jsamuel]

11. if I remeber correctly, that is what Keith asked him about, but he wouldn't take that one either

He rephrased it into a new question and then answered that one instead.

Again, not all that bad, but it was very hard to watch.

[orleans]

74. agree. and he's my FIRST choice.

i keep saying the 08 ticket: gore/kennedy (bobby)

[Virginia Dare]

2. What I think Al Gore wants is..

to become the liberal Rupert Murdoch, and I wish him well in that venture. He's just trying to keep his profile and popularity up, but in truth, I don't think he'll run.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

3. I love Gore. That said, he did say something that disturbed me and at the same time

made me think that he will run. He didn't bash Reid and Pelosi on the Dems caving in on the Iraq spending. In fact he said he supported Reid and Pelosi. By standing with them, he has made their support of his nomination quite possible.

[Matariki]

6. Maybe he sees the situation with more complexity than many people here are able to.

Maybe he genuinely supports them, like many people here did just weeks ago.

Pelosi voted against the recent bill. They didn't have enough votes to counter Bush's veto. It's not so black and white.

[nini]

15. MAYBE?!?!?!??!?!?

You could have left out maybe - 'he definitley sees the situation with more complexity than many people here are able to'. :P


That's the whole problem with emotional responses to politics. Emotion and passion is good, but there are times when reality of a situation has to be considered and accepted before we can move on.

I liked what I saw in Gore last night - it's nice to see someone formulate a sentence and know the issues for a change.

[Matariki]

32. that's the way I talk when I'm trying to be polite

;-)

and yes and yes to your other two sentences.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. Bingo.

We have far too many zealots here.

[ecstatic]

71. LOL. Gore has been wrong before

Actually numerous times... From the way he acted towards the Clintons, to his fatal pick of Lieberman for VP, to his releasing himself from the stolen Florida vote fiasco in 2000... Now I'm not trying to be nasty towards Gore, I'm just saying he has been wrong before and is definitely wrong now if he supports that bill.

[HardRocker05]

83. yeah, the complexity that political aspirations invariably bring. nt

[welshTerrier2]

23. please read this ...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/gore_against_fu.html

In an ABC interview, Gore said he would have voted "NO" on the last Iraq funding bill because it did not contain a withdrawal timetable. His comments about Reid and Pelosi were, shall we say, collegial courtesy.

[Matariki]

36. Pelosi voted "NO" too.

And this is Reid's statement on his vote:

"How to vote on the bill before us is a very difficult and personal decision for each member of this body. There are many thoughtful members of my caucus who believe we should vote “NO” — and continue to vote “NO” — until the President and his supporters come to their senses.

"There are equally thoughtful members who believe we must vote “YES” because this bill does take a step forward in holding the President and the Iraqis accountable and that it does increase pressure on this Administration and its supporters to change direction in Iraq.

"Although this is a very close call for me as I suspect it is for many Senators, I have decided to support this measure."

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. Yes, she did vote no, but as Speaker, I would think she could have had more of a voice.

The Repukes always rallied around their Speakers.

As to Reid, no matter what he has to say, I will never agree with his reasoning. The Democrats acted as wimps and so did the Repukes, as polls show that the vast majoriy of the people want out of Iraq.

Keith Olbermann's special comment said it all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831132/

[Matariki]

44. I wasn't happy with the vote either, but I do understand that there is complexity involved.

I'm not withdrawing my support or admiration for Pelosi. And I do believe that Reid will continue to fight this administration. If they are all just putting on a show and are really no different than the most corrupt Republicans then we all have to give up on our current form of government. I'm not ready to believe that yet.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

43. Thank you. My point is that I think he was being a bit more than collegian, more

conciliatory. Their support for him will be very important if he decides to run.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. I was largely unimpressed as well

But he was talking way over the heads of the average American. Maybe it was Keith's questions?

[jsamuel]

5. yeah the questions were not thrown well either

Keith pitched wobbly balls and Gore kept hitting foul.

[RedEarth]

28. Me too, I like Gore, but was not impressed last night

My wife made the comment that he shouldn't use such big words...doing that can turn off some people.

[Matariki]

38. Gee, and he's promoting a book that's more or less about the dumbing down of political discourse.

But he shouldn't use 'such big words'? Maybe he should put together a 30 second sound bite?

And what were the 'big words' he was using anyway?

I heard a clip of the State of the Union address by Roosevelt, or perhaps it was Truman. The thing that really struck me was the level of his vocabulary and I couldn't help but think that we are getting dumber as a nation.

[skipos]

40. We are getting dumber as a nation

and you don't win elections by only appealing to thoughtful, intelligent voters. Anyone who wantsto be President should accept this. U.S. history is littered with well qualified people who lost the presidency to less qualified people who were able to appeal to the masses. IMO, Jackson defeating JQ Adams was the 1st case of this.

[Matariki]

41. I disagree.

One of the reasons for Gore's current popularity is precisely because he is not 'speaking down' to people but engaging in a dialog we have been long craving.

[skipos]

51. Popular where?

On DU and amongst Democrats, sure. Most of America, not so much. Go look at any McCain vs. Gore, Giuliani vs. Gore poll. Here is the Quinnipiac one from April:
Dame Rudy 48, Gore 41
McCain 47, Gore 41

I know some DUers like to think that all the pollsters are in on some conspiracy, but many of them have Edwards and Obama beating all the Repubs. The Quin poll has Obama statistically tied with Dame Rudy and McCain.

And I am not cherrypicking either. Gore isn't included in many gen. election polls, but he tends to underperform Edwards and Obama. His favorable/unfavorable numbers seem to be better than Hillary's, but not by much. Rasmussen, who claims that "Obama Enjoys Highest Level of Base Support" of all presidential candidates, who has Bill Clinton's favorable/unfavorable ratings at 57/40, has Gore's at 50/47.

While I could easily see myself supporting Gore as a candidate, I see no concrete evidence that there is much of a "craving" for Gore outside of informed, thoughful people. And you don't win elections by only appealing to informed, thoughtful people.

[Labors of Hercules]

54. What are polls when Gore isn't yet a candidate?

total bullshit. That's what.

[skipos]

59. What about his mediocre favorable/unfavorables?

Or are those "bullshit" too? Bill Clinton isn't a candidate, and neither is GHW Bush, but it is pretty obvious from the polls that the former is more popular than the latter, at least to me. I guess you'd consider that "bullshit."

Do you have any evidence that the masses are "craving" Gore? I am all ears.

I don't like it when Hillary supporters can't admit that the polls indicate she is our weakest general election candidate. I like Gore, but I can admit that he has some serious uphill battles in a general election.

[Matariki]

64. Evidence of 'the masses' craving Gore = sold out crowds whenever he speaks

and really there's no such thing as 'the masses'

[Matariki]

63. I have to agree with Labors of Hercules - Gore has 41% and he isn't even running (yet)

I'd say he's very popular.

[TwilightGardener]

70. "you don't win elections by only appealing to informed, thoughtful people"--

so true, so true. A minority if there ever was one.

[Labors of Hercules]

81. This is a very narrow phrase and not altogether un-republican in nature.

I disagree with it on principle.

[TwilightGardener]

93. OK--I just agreed that it might be asking too much for voters to be

thoughtful and informed, considering who we have in the WH now. Certainly didn't intend to get all "Republican", LOL!

[Labors of Hercules]

98. No worries mate! Let's just hope 6+ years of stupid has woken enough people up... n/t

[foo_bar]

108. it's actually a paraphrase of Adlai Stevenson

When the eloquent Adlai Stevenson was running for president against Dwight Eisenhower, a woman gushed to the Democratic candidate after a rally, "Every thinking person will be voting for you." Stevenson supposedly replied: "Madam, that is not enough. I need a majority."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/shapiro/2004-06-08-hype_x.htm

[Kurovski]

104. "Dame Rudy"

:rofl:

[RevCheesehead]

49. It IS possible to do both.

You can be thoughtful and intellectual, and at the same time, find the ability to communicate your message in simple sentences.

[skipos]

52. I totally agree. I think Bill Clinton was very intelligent

but was still able to connect with people who weren't.

[Cha]

45. Yes, I would like to know

what the big words are, too. When we get a transcript I'll check it out.

Full discloser: I like big words.

[RedEarth]

60. I don't mind them

My wife merely made the comment she felt he was using too big of words and it might distract from his message. I could understand him and my wife who is a published author, a speech writer and has a masters in English could also understand him.

I like Gore, I voted for Gore, I worked in his campaign and even had a relative who worked in the White House for several years when Clinton/Gore were in office. I desperately want a Democrat to win in 08 and have thought Gore might be the best hope. I would like our candidate for 08 to have broad appeal, since I would love to see a landslide...I want the republicans pushed back to the dark ages.

Perhaps I was listening with too critical of ear last night, but that's what I thought at the time.

[Cha]

80. I understand...I just

wanted to know the "words" to see if I needed to look up any or not. I'm always looking up words to make sure I know the meaning and the spelling. Another thing DU has done for moi.

If Gore should happen to run we could bring this to his attention ..i.e. "having broader appeal".

bushit has our Nation so bamboozled with words that aren't even in the dictionary..it's time to have a president who knows how to speak intelligently without having to resort to gibberish when his mind goes blank.

[On the Road]

7. I Occurred to Me That Gore's Concern with Parsing His Words

might be the clearest sign yet that he is still considering a run. He's no longer willing to let it all hang out and damn the consequences.

[jsamuel]

8. he was so much better on the Daily Show

last week

[monarch]

14. I completely agree!! He seemed very natural and relaxed

and I would credit a lot of that to Jon Stewart. When he is on his game, he can conduct some amazing interviews.

[NYCGirl]

20. A very different venue. NT

[Matariki]

9. I think perhaps it was more like being stuck between two fighting friends

He was careful not to criticize Cindy Sheehan and my guess is that he both respects her AND disagrees with her. I think it was more this than political maneuvering.

[CTD]

16. That's EXACTLY what I said to my wife while watching last night

The return of awkward Gore is a sign, IMO, that he's seeing himself as a candidate again.

Hopefully he can find a way to be a candidate AND be himself.

[supernova]

12. He was trying to keep it

at the level of his book, which is in fact about an abstract topic.

If you look at last night, and the Daily Show, he really does want to have a meta-conversation about our public discourse. It's not the individual topics like Cindy Sheehan, or the war, but how we talk about them.

It's not an honest conversation right now. And he's right.

[jsamuel]

13. yes he was much better on TDS, as I commented above

much much better

[supernova]

21. But that just proves his point

Grading him on how scintilating his performance was on Countdown, like you vote for American Idol, is in fact part of the problem.

Do you not see how being worred about how Al Gore is percieved is not the same and very much less meaningful than the subject of the conversation? That we don't have honest venues for discourse, except for the internet, which he did praise. But sadly, not everybody jumps on and participates via the internet the same way we do. Many more people need to start doing it.

Did you not hear him say he would like to see real-time interaction between the public and Congress when they are voting on bills? C-Span is nice, but it's not up to this task. And why can't you get updates and alerts on legislation the same way you get football scores, or who's going to be on your favorite TV show tonight?

He also said, on TDS and Countdown, that he didn't think he was very good at politics. I don't know if that's true, but it did seem at least heartfelt ... sincere.

But heh, if you want to keep talking about how he "fell flat," keep on.

[jsamuel]

24. It's not about how "scintilating" his performance was, it was his inablity

to get his ideas across. Any president who hopes to gather support for his/her ideas needs to be able to do that. I'm just being honest about what I thought last night, no need to get angry. It took a lot to post this on DU knowing I would likely get attacked for trying to provide some constructive criticism of our candidates. I complimented his TDS appearance and your reply is angry.

[supernova]

29. Not angry

I am, however, intensely passionate about this subject of appearance seeming to be more highly valued over substance and meaning.

Look, it takes a lot of nerve to post on GD, so props to you for that.

Look, Al is taking his own path here, and I think we need to trust him do what he thinks is right, for himself and for the country. If that means writing and speaking like he is doing, fine. If that means running for office again. That's OK too. He's earned the right to serve however best he sees fit. And in doing either, I know he will be coming from a place of contemplation and reason.

[jsamuel]

34. That I agree with.

[Mojorabbit]

46. I agree with you

I love Gore and his appearance on letterman and the daily show was great. He was relaxed and funny while still getting his message across. Last night I couldn't concentrate on what he was saying. His voice seemed monotone and I had to make an effort to follow the conversation. He did not seem on "his game". He'd still be my first choice but for the general public, the ability to speak in a way that gets people's blood pumping and insired for change is important.
I am hoping for better from the rest of the interview.

[DURHAM D]

22. Remote interview -

They are difficult for most people and I think it is a particularly poor forum for him. Listening to a question and responding to just a camera is never easy and at times he had trouble hearing the question or response from KO. He is much, much better face to face and he has to know that from prior experience.

Some seem to forget he is on a book tour. The thought that popped into my head while watching that interview is that he is not running. If he was he would not have done this type of interview - he is not stupid.

[KoKo]

17. Good point to think about SuperNova!

Thanks for putting it that way.

[Donnachaidh]

18. Thank you!

I was actually very surprised with his openness.

[MasonJar]

19. I am reading the book and it is quite relevant and serious. Why does

every interview have to be entertaining? He was lighthearted on the former show, but was trying to be sensible and sensitive last night. I agree with him on Pelosi and Reid. We need to hang in there with the dems. Al Gore is a statesman; he really cares about the planet and its people and creatures. Why does he have to be always amusing or even glib to be a great president? If you have watched his speeches, then you have seen Al at his most articulate and passionate. Those were speeches from the heart; they were his own very articulate words (as is his book) and were not read off cards a la GWB.

[supernova]

25. That's what I'd like to know, MasonJar

Why does every interview have to be entertaining?.... Why does he have to be always amusing or even glib to be a great president?


I think we really need to get away from the idea that our politicians and statesmen/women have to be entertainers.

[welshTerrier2]

26. failure to adjust his presentation to the forum

Gore has recently appeared in numerous venues. With Charlie Rose and Harry Shearer, he was in venues that allowed long, meandering, philosophical reflection. With John Stewart, Gore's long and analytical responses were frequently interrupted for Stewart to make a joke or just to liven things up.

Gore chose the wrong response style with Olbermann. I think the fact they weren't at the same location added to the problem. His first response was way, way too long. It sort of cut Olbermann out of establishing a rapport with him. Olbermann allowed Gore to go on as long as he wanted. Gore would have been better off with sharper, more concise responses to Keith's questions. He also frequently strayed from directly answering the questions and instead presented his "stump speech" from his book.

Not one of his better performances. Not a big deal either as long as he learns from it.

[EST]

27. I find these threads particularly intriguing.

After evaluating my own reactions to his appearance, I have tried to look at those of others without an investment in the analysis.
The overwhelming result is that Al Gore just didn't say what you wanted him to say-confirm your own beliefs-and said exactly what he wanted to say, which wasn't quite what Keith wanted him to say, either. There is nothing wrong with your expectations, or anyone else's, for that matter, but the expectations of the observers aren't what his mission has to be about.

His whole point, and the point of his book, is not to condemn George Bush and the vast criminal cabal that have infested our system-and, yes, they need to be condemned-but to point out that the system is severely compromised; it's broken. If the system, and the capability of and use of reason, weren't so badly broken, crooks of the caliber of cheneybush and rove could not attain power.

It's like having an uncontrollable itch. One could fault the itch, or the microbe that caused it, or one could point out the real problem: that the immune system of the sufferer is severely compromised and anything other than fixing the immune system is merely treating the symptoms, not the cause. He is not dealing with the problems that consume our attention; he is heavily involved in a higher level of analysis and treatment than that.

You can fix the chenybushes and Roves in the system and maybe win an election or two, doing a little to repair the current situation, but until the underlying problems are fixed and cured, the system re-designed and re-launched, any fix or win is, at best, a temporary repair and is subject to a blowout at any time.

When one is dealing with trying to create enlightenment at the level of the underlying system, such things as the immediate moral morass, Cindy Sheehan, the Iraq war, on and on, are, at best, abstractions and distractions, mere itches that are the result of the general malaise and breakdown of reason and the system that reason produces.

You and I are alarmed and appalled at the details, the itch, and it consumes our attention. Gore is involved in repairing the system that produces those details and shallow (may I say idiotic?) questions about the details of the itch are, if anything, almost insulting.

Nothing wrong with being bored or disappointed that he is not as consumed with the issues that we consider important; it is, however, far removed from the overarching issues that he has set himself to correcting and his answers may seem vague or "dodging" merely because the questions are so for outside the very large issues he is dealing with.

[supernova]

30. Ohhh, you're good!! ^^ Excellent post.

:toast:

You said it so much better than I did. :D

[Matariki]

47. This is probably the best analysis yet. Very astute. n/t

[johnaries]

57. Excellent post! If this had it's own thread, I would Recommend! nt

[MasonJar]

61. This is so astute. Anyone who has not yet read the book (or part

of it as I have) cannot truly appreciate the magnitude of the depth of subject that is involved. Assault on Reason is a very erudite, well researched manuscript, which approaches the subject of reason and its antithesis (Bushistas) with the same integrity and solemnity as Gore extends to the global warming debate. One of the primary themes in the book (as far as I have read) is in essence the very issue being discussed in this forum. It is how television has broken down the national dialogue because it is a one way street. Tv, according to Gore, (and this is paraphrased)has diminished reason so often found when a literate public reads and discusses and wrties about (LTTE, or etc.) a topic of import. He deplores the fact that the news departments now have to pay their own way and, thereby, end up devoting massive time to Nicole and Brittany et al. He does compliment the internet as a sane road back to participation. Perhaps this interview is a good example of his point. Also Gore may be very tired right now. He is giving speeches at a minimum of daily and is in many parts of the country in a short span of time. He has been devoting his life to the global warming presentations and those are worldwide. He is also organizing a very complicated and massive concert agenda. Etcs.

[immoderate]

67. Sad that Gore needs to be explained...

By my count, he didn't utter a single simple sentence. They were complex and convoluted with many dependent clauses and prepositional phrases. What good are his ideas, if he can't communicate them?

On TDS, he used short sentences and phrases, (you have to be quick with Jon Stewart,) and I understood him.

--IMM

[Javaman]

69. "On TDS, he used short sentences and phrases"

I guess that only works for the sound byte generation. We have fallen so far down, that real insight and intelligent responses become a liability. That is emotionally and morally sad for our nation.

The last thing we need is another dumb ass* in the White House whose only redeeming quality is his* fart jokes. Gore understands that the issues facing the nation are deep and complex on a very fundamental level and sound bytes would just do disservice to them and the nation.

He would make and would have made an excellent president because nothing in his world is simply black and white.

[immoderate]

76. The issues are complex, but that doesn't mean one must use...

convoluted and opaque language to explain them. What works in Joyceian literature doesn't necessarily carry over to political speech. Orwell managed to describe politics with understandable sentences.

Gore is my first choice. But he should be able to express himself in plain language.

--IMM

[Javaman]

99. Whatever. nt

[immoderate]

100. I'm glad you agree!

:)

--IMM

[Javaman]

105. What are you 6 years old? nt

[immoderate]

106. No. But I slept at a Holiday Inn.

BTW, "whatever" is mature?

--IMM

[TwilightGardener]

72. What you're saying though, is unless you've read his book and his

other writings and speeches, you are not going to "get" him or be able to thoroughly appreciate just how deep his thoughts run, or grasp what he's REALLY trying to say or do. This may be true, but it does not bode well for a campaign. He had an opportunity to communicate effectively (not "sound bites", but brief and succinct answers that get the main point across) and it does not sound like he was effective, from what folks are saying here. I didn't see it, so I'm not picking on him. But if candidate has to rely on the average American voter to "study up" and psychoanalyze him to understand what he's trying to say, well...we all know how THAT'S gonna work out. Sounds like if he does run, he will need some coaching to put forth a simpler, more direct and less ponderous message. Someone needs to ask him what he'd say if a house was on fire: Do you say, "Fire! Everybody out!" or "There appears to be a conflagration of flammable materials located in the laundry room..."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. If you want fire and brimstone, Al's not your guy.

And more than that, your guy will never win. See: Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich.

[jsamuel]

35. I don't want "fire and brimstone" and I don't want "Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich"

I want Al Gore to be the best he can be and not let words get in the way of his ideas.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. He's trying not to.

I think if he answered those questions as straightly as you want him to, it'd change the conversation to a topic that was not his purpose for being on the show in the first place. Furthermore, it would have the potential for leaving any of his future opponents. I think he correctly just fluffed off the questions and continued on with his point.

In other words, I think he did his best not to let words and vastly unrelated ideas get in the way of his ideas.

I apologize for implying you were a Sharpton or Kucinich supporter - that was not my intent. I was only trying to say that always speaking flatly and answering every question is not a wise political strategy.

[Wanet]

37. I love Al Gore but I have to agree

The thing that bothered me last night was his smile -- somthing about it seemed inappropriate and I can't put my finger on it. I know it sounds shallow, but I though his physical appearance wasn't right. I still hope he will run with General Clark as his VP. -- Wanet

[Hissyspit]

48. You & I must have seen a different interview. I was very impressed to hear someone intelligent

speak for a change. See EST's post #27.

[DefenseLawyer]

50. You know who would have done great on Countdown?

Ronald Reagan. Smooth, funny, with a simple message "Don't worry, be happy!". He would have torn it up. Did you ever think that someone who is a little less glib yet possessing the ability for abstract thought might be a tradeoff that we need?

[magellan]

53. Sadly I have to agree, I was disappointed.

I watched in hopes of settling in my mind whether I could vote for him if he runs (since my prime candidate, Kucinich, will likely not get through). I wound up yelling at the tv. "PropagandISTIC" and other weak/evasive phrases he used did not impress me. It was like listening to a doctor use a bunch of medical jargon just to say "We think you're dying" -- as you lay there on a respirator with your heart about to give out.

Maybe he was having a bad night, I don't know. But I do know we don't need MORE OF THE SAME.

[dave29]

55. Reminder: Bush cannot speak a coherent sentence

And he is beloved by many as a "regular guy." Take any performance in the context of all performances, and in the larger context of some of the boneheads we have grunting into microphones every day.

Gore is graded, repeatedly, for his performance, how he looks, how he speaks etc... because it is the only thing people have to take issue with. It's not like he's wrong on the issues. You can't argue with reason, but you can certainly argue with performance and gab about fashion choices or speaking style. Doesn't mean he is incorrect.

-Dave

Edit to add: and my thoughts on his performance: he was having difficulty at first because he was trying to steer the conversation in the direction of his book, which is probably what he was told the interview would be about. Keith threw him some curveballs, which he might have missed at the beginning, but I felt like he got his stride and hit the rest of the interview out of the park. My two cents, and that's all they are worth.

[mondo joe]

56. He wasn't his best. And WHAT IS UP WITH HIS MAKEUP??

I really like Al, despite a poor campaign in 2000. And I've felt for a while now that if he ran he'd be a shoe-in (except for the fraud risk on the GOP's part).

That said, there's the good Gore and the not-so-good, and it was the latter who appeared on Countdown. Too abstract, too...political.

And was I the only one who thought his makeup was weird?

[Poiuyt]

58. You're not alone

The make-up and the lighting were bad. They made him look pasty.

[Matariki]

65. Sorry, but can you get any more shallow?

Listen to the content of what he's saying and we can discuss that, not the makeup job Countdown's staff did on him.

[mondo joe]

68. Appearance matters in a political campaign. Sorry to have to shatter your illusions..

And it's not the first time Al has had a run in with bad make up. During one of the presidential debates he looked like he was done by a mortitian, which is the first thing I thought of when I saw him last night.

In any event, APPEARANCE MATTERS in a campaign. Didn't you know that?

[dave29]

75. he's not in a political campaign

is he?

[mondo joe]

82. My response was in the context of his potential run. Furthermore, as

a spokesperson on an issue, yeah, he's in a campaign.

[dave29]

85. he has the #2 book

and his documentary did pretty well (you may have caught the Oscars)

I'm just saying. His "campaign" is doing QUITE well, regardless of how people feel about how he looks.

[mondo joe]

86. I'm "just saying" too.

I'm "just saying" he should think about who's doing his makeup.

[Matariki]

78. Sure, as long as we keep the discourse at such a shallow level they do.

And you are being freaking nit-picky. His 'make up' for gods sake? There was nothing wrong with his appearance, and nothing wrong with his speaking for that matter.

You're making yourself part of the problem you realize?

[mondo joe]

84. You overstate my power, and you understate reality.

As a reality-based person, I can only tell you that appearances matter.

[Matariki]

87. One - appearances don't have to matter much. Two - there was nothing wrong with Gore's appearance.

If the vanguard in this country - of which I believe places like DU are part of - focus on the issues and not politician's hair and makeup, the national dialog will be lifted up overall.

I did not 'overstate your power', I pointed out that you are contributing to dragging the level of discourse down. You don't really need to do that, I expect you're a reasonably intelligent person.

It's time for us all to stop trying to guess what makes our candidates 'electable' to the lowest common denominator and start raising the bar.

[mondo joe]

89. Whether they have to or not, they do.

If you want to pretend you're in some dreamland, go ahead.

If you want to pretend you're in the world of SHOULD rather than the world that IS, go ahead.

Good way to not win elections.

[Matariki]

91. And you're just covering for your catty, high-school-girl- like dis on Gore's 'makeup'

By calling your nonsense 'reality based'.

I KNOW you can be smarter than this.

[mondo joe]

92. Oh, sounds like something hit a nerve.

Tch tch.

[Matariki]

96. are you kidding me? You are good with spouting non-issues pal.

I think you're being shallow and a bit dumb. You were the first person in this thread to blather on about Gore's makeup. Who cares really? Do you? If so, why? Does it bother you personally or are you 'concerned' about what some republicans or moderate democrats might think about Gore's 'makeup'?

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

97. I don't like my candidate to run a dumb campaign. Sue me.

I had a lot of problems with Gore's 2000 campaign,though he's my preferred candidate right now -- but only because he seemed to have ditched some of the 2000 failings. If he's back in that mode, I'll look elsewhere.

And if yuo don't like it, tough shit. You know where the ignore button is.

[sam kane]

77. I really love Gore, but...

I am really tired of these "I like Gore, but now I'm gonna trash him over something superficial" comments. He won in 2000 and he'll win big in 2008. The stuff about the way he speaks and looks is like a repetition of Republican talking points to me.

[DesertRat]

94. I agree with you Sam.

As much as I want Gore to run, I dread the trashing that will come. It's frustrating to hear it coming from Dems on this board already.

People don't like the way he speaks, they say he sounds like he's lecturing, etc....well look at who we have now. The guy that many said was "down to earth" and who they wanted to "have a beer with." :eyes:

I want someone who is brilliant and who has a lot of executive experience. Al Gore is my first choice.

[immoderate]

101. Al is my first choice too, but you missed the point...

Some people can't tell the difference between feedback and trashing. My preference would be to have a beer with Al Gore, and there was never any question for me, and while we were discussing the complex issues of the day over that beer, I would lean in and say, "Al, you have to use a more simple syntax when you are describing your views to larger groups, or they're going to trash you for your speaking style."

We know he can do it because he did it on TDS. I'm a fan of Al's, and I bet he heard the same thing from some of his friends after his appearance on Countdown.

--IMM

[DesertRat]

107. I want a brilliant president

I don't want Gore to have to dumb down for the American people or "use a more simple syntax" as you say. This column in the Washington Post by Eugene Robinson expresses my views:

"Leave aside the question of whether Gore is even thinking about another presidential run, or how he would stack up against the other candidates. I'm making a more general point: One thing that should be clear to anyone who's been paying attention these past few years is that we need to go out and get ourselves the smartest president we can find. We need a brainiac president, a regular Mister or Miss Smarty-Pants. We need to elect the kid you hated in high school, the teacher's pet with perfect grades.

When I look at what the next president will have to deal with, I don't see much that can be solved with just a winning smile, a firm handshake and a ton of resolve. I see conundrums, dilemmas, quandaries, impasses, gnarly thickets of fateful possibility with no obvious way out. Iraq is the obvious place he or she will have to start; I want a president smart enough to figure out how to minimize the damage.

I want a president who reads newspapers, who reads books other than those that confirm his worldview, who bones up on Persian history before deciding how to deal with Iran's ambitious dreams of glory. I want a president who understands the relationship between energy policy at home and U.S. interests in the Middle East -- and who's smart enough to form his or her own opinions, not just rely on what old friends in the oil business say."

snip

"I want the next president to be intellectually curious -- and also intellectually honest. I want him or her to understand the details, not just the big picture. I won't complain if the next president occasionally uses a word I have to look up."
Read the entire article-->http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053101851.html

[DemGa]

62. I didn't see it

But I've seen Gore on other appearances, Charlie Rose, for example. I don't know of anyone else with the prescience and fearlessness to speak the truth as Al Gore. So a few people may think his 'performance' was little flat, or he didn't articulate a zinger out of the park. He may not be a very good politician, but he'll make very fine President.

If he runs, and he is running. IMO

[LSK]

66. please buy his new book and read it

It is brilliant.

[Uncle Joe]

73. Seconded, it is brilliant, I just hope it didn't blind Dana Milbank

with all that light.

[Matariki]

79. This thread is falling flat

I'm honestly getting disappointed at how many posts are picking on the most ridiculous, shallow, non-issue things about Al Gore. No wonder the American political system is in such shambles.

[DesertRat]

95. Amen. n/t

[immoderate]

103. Al would get useful feedback if he read this thread.

That is, if he is running...

--IMM

[Orsino]

88. He's not electrifying.

He's a great idea man, and is capable of real passion, but he ain't Bubba. He's not going to summon that level of charisma...but I don't hate him for it. It ought to be enough to be a good-hearted, intelligent person.

[Swamp Rat]

90. I think Al Gore did just fine.

The interview was not the best, but I think the venue had more to do with the "flat" appearance.

This type of interview lends itself more to 5-20 sound bytes often heard on CNN and FUX - in other words, if you are a bonehead like Bushler or Reagan, then you will do well in this format.

Gore handled the fluff questions well and kept returning to more important topics. The way he handled the Cindy Sheehan and Reid/Pelosi questions was excellent... if you don't think he is running for president after that segement, then... :D

Most importantly, his message is being heard by millions of people, and he is getting PAID to run a non-campaign. ;)

[Beelzebud]

102. Blasphomy!!! Burn the witch!