I hate it when people claim Gore has "reinvented" himself. I even see that on DU

[jpgray]

Based on what I've read, heard and seen from him, he's essentially the same exact guy we saw in 2000. But extreme events, crisis, war, etc. tends to bring out the best from the best and the worst from the worst. Less volatile times may disguise or mute those qualities, but it doesn't mean they weren't there to begin with. So to those who are saying to themselves "Boy, in 2000 Gore was Repuke-lite, but I dig the new Goracle, man!": it's not something new you're seeing, it's something you just didn't notice before, but was there all along. And I wish everybody got a chance to see it in 2000. The media had other ideas, obviously, and in many cases the media have not moved on from obsessing on the trifles of image-based coverage, PR navel-gazing and marketing. Gore hasn't changed, but rather these recent times have brought out the best in him.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Well I hope he's changed some.

[jpgray]

2. How would you say he's changed?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. His debate techniques, his VP choices...

his stance on the evolution/creationism debate in schools...

[jpgray]

8. Would you say Lieberman changed? He was far less hated back then

Or was he also the same guy? I'd say in contrast to Gore the "war on terror" brought out his -worst- qualities, that were also there all along.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Well "brought out" would be a change. A reinvention.

A welcome one.

[jpgray]

23. Extreme situations can bring out qualities that were always there

US Grant wasn't such great shakes as a tanner, right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. He wasn't such great shakes as a president.

But now you're arguing the Gore did change, because of what happened to the country, and that's contradicting your original thesis.

[jpgray]

29. No, what happened to the country brought out parts of Gore that were always there

You could see them only in glimpses, but they were definitely there before.

[Thothmes]

45. He did have his strong suits thought

[texastoast]

3. Gore appears to have changed

Check out the 2000 debates then his moveon speech in May of 2004. Had Gore had the fire in his belly in 2000 that he had in the moveon speech, we would have had much different outcome in 2000.

Different different different

Love him love him love him.

[jpgray]

6. Isn't it more the events that brought out what was already there? Witness the 2002 speech

Also presidential campaigns (rightly or no :P) are all about presenting a mollified version of the candidate. One ready example is that in those debates Bush said he would not nation build and would only commit troops with an exit strategy.

[Truth2Tell]

10. So if a Prez campaign is about

"mollified" versions of candidates, where was MoveOn Al prior to running for Prez?

[jpgray]

14. Again, which event pre-2003 is comparable to an illegal war?

[texastoast]

12. Mollifying

Exact word. And that strategy of "be-all-to-all" doesn't work well. But it surely mollifies some folks.

[jpgray]

18. That strategy -sucks-. But the media are partly to blame (witness the Dean Iowa speech)

[Az]

4. The problem is campaign advisers

During his campaign run he let them have too much control over image and tactics. He has commented on it since then and come to the conclusion that was his big mistake. The reason he came off as wooden so often is likely because he was trying to be what they told him to be instead of just being himself.

[jpgray]

11. Candidate mollification is standard practice in campaigns--happened to Bush as well

We shouldn't police the world, we shouldn't nation build, we should never commit troops without an exit strategy, etc.

[Truth2Tell]

7. Please point me to any pre-2000 statements by Al Gore

even remotely as forceful as these 2003 comments to MoveOn.org:

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

Where was that Al Gore? Please show me?

[jpgray]

9. Show me an event that warranted such statements as much as this illegal war?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. The Rwandan genocide.

[jpgray]

16. But this time -we're- carrying out the mass killing and torture. Bit different, no?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Not that different.

[jpgray]

21. A brutal regime in Africa and our transformation into a brutal regime are equivalent in your mind?

Really?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. They're not that different...

that I think it should influence Al Gore's character.

[jpgray]

24. One's own country turning into an oppressive nightmare before one's eyes?

Equivalent to brutal de rigueur tribal wars in Africa? Seriously? The tragedy is palpable in each case, but when it's your own country, and you've worked for that country all your life?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Mmm, no.

It really shouldn't matter if it's happening in your own country or in Africa.

[jpgray]

30. So I assume you post equally on African conflicts as on the Iraq conflict?

Equally on African politics as on US politics? Or do you speak more often and more passionately about US issues?

[KAZ]

35. He's not going to give it up, no matter how right you are.

That's just his way, and why we love our little Hooligan. :)

[jpgray]

38. He's tenacious, which is great, but I wish he wouldn't make arguments he doesn't buy himself

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. How right she is?

Upthread she contradicts herself.

:rofl:

[jpgray]

48. Where do I contradict myself? Is this another dishonest argument you don't even believe yourself?

But I'll humor you. Post the quote you believe is contradictory.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Huh.

I could have sworn that in your OP you were arguing that Gore is the same man he was in 2000. Now it appears I may have misread, because you say he changed.

Nevermind then.

[jpgray]

51. It's a semantic problem, I think--his behavior was changed by events, his identity wasn't

In other words every thing we see in Gore today was visible in glimpses before, but it has been brought to the fore by the extreme times we live in. "Reinvention" implies some wholesale disingenuous revamping of one's identity, and I think Gore post-2000's identity is wholly consistent with Gore pre-2000's identity. We're seeing more of his good qualities now, but they were there before. He's hardly a different person or "reinvented." Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. No.

However, I don't treat it as some lesser crime because it's just in Africa. It doesn't influence my behaviour.

[jpgray]

47. To be fair, I've rarely seen a consistent level of passion on African issues here, from -anyone-

Only a few flareups of posts that are usually brought about by double standard attention to other genocides, or by recent news attention to a particularly nasty incident. Does that mean DU believes conflicts in Darfur or the Congo or what have you are unimportant or less tragic? Nah, but when we become so much more oppressive, brutal and torturous -here- it really "brings it home" to people. And they react more to it. Wouldn't you agree?

[Truth2Tell]

17. Didn't global warming warrant

that kind of passion prior to 2000? Yes, his book was cool, etc... but I never saw that kind of passion about anything from Gore prior to 2000.

I will buy that Gore hasn't morphed massively on issues, but you have to acknowledge that his tone has changed.

[jpgray]

20. That slideshow is 20 years old. Gore has been passionate about the environment for a long time

[Truth2Tell]

25. No doubt about it, he has

and I like Gore a lot and wish he would run.

But sometimes politicians say things that make you gasp and say "wow, what candor!" That's the stuff we've been hearing from Gore the last 6 years. We didn't hear that before. And it's not like there were no opportunities to do that. DK was doing that kind of candor pre-2000, as were some others. But Gore... not so much.

Maybe you should ask the leadership of the DLC if they think Gore has changed.

[jpgray]

28. Politicians with candor are marginalized and destroyed by the media

Gore was accused of lies and dissembling -constantly-, and in all cases (internet, Love Canal, Love Story, whatever) the basis for the claims of "liar!" were either blatantly or effectively false. It doesn't -matter- what you say if the media decide to marginalize you or go after you. Dennis and Nader are political nobodies that no one votes for, despite progressive stances on the issues being extremely popular. Where's the disconnect? If candor was valued, Dean or Kucinich would have been our nom in 2004.

[Truth2Tell]

33. OK fine. But

you just made the case for why he had to be different before - not for your claim in the OP that he wasn't different.

[jpgray]

34. I think these times brought out the best in Gore, values he had his whole life

It's the drowning man scenario--the sort of person who will jump in to save someone didn't reinvent his or her self into a hero, it's just that some events bring those qualities to the fore (if they exist!). They don't just appear out of nowhere.

[Truth2Tell]

36. Also fair enough

I'll buy that he had those values before. But he didn't let them show - and that unwillingness to put them forward - even for legitimate political reasons - made him a different person than he is now. Someone who speaks their mind regardless of consequences is substantially different than someone who hedges what they say, IMO.

[jpgray]

37. Maybe it's more semantics than anything else. A change of behavior, not identity

Maybe I'm still traumatized from the media's "hopeless chameleon Gore reinvents self every appearance, can't help but lie, wears earth tones, etc." Especially since Bush's fake cowboy persona was so accepted by the press--the alcoholic the media would have loved to drink a beer with.

[Truth2Tell]

39. I think the new Gore

would steamroll that meme these days if he ran. His stature and personal forcefulness would knock those same pundits into the dirt. That line wouldn't hold for them anymore. The irony is that now that he's really made some changes (in presentation) he couldn't be as easily tagged as a bullshitter, which was the critics essential (but false) argument before.

Yes, "reinvent" is just semantics, maybe right, maybe wrong. But in this case it's not a bad thing.

[Virginia Dare]

41. The prospect of a shrub jr. presidency warranted it...n/t

[jpgray]

42. Yeah, even based on what we knew of Bush at that point, that's fair

But I have to admit I didn't see the Iraq invasion coming. I expected more attempts to try to freeze out Russia and other parts of Europe from Iraq's gains. Besides, Cheney was known to be the most dangerous one even back then.

[Virginia Dare]

52. Regarding seeing the invasion coming..

a colleague of mine swears she heard Bush say in one of his pre-election speeches that he wanted to take Saddam out. I've never been able to find a transcript or a reference to it, but he did seem to hold a grudge (remember "he tried to kill my dad")?.

The only thing I really remember about him, besides being stupider than a post, is the debate where he hammered Gore on "nation building". How ironic is that now?

[OzarkDem]

50. I saw it plenty of times when he was Veep

One memorable speech he made was in Cleveland the day before election day 1996. He got up and made a rip-roaring, fist shaking speech blasting the hell out of the GOP and making a very passionate case for advancing the Dem agenda. He tore the roof off the place. He had us all chanting "12 more years" as he came by the rope line. He laughed and said "one election at a time".

When Bill got up to the microphone after, he said something like "What did you have for breakfast? Here's a link to Clinton's speech that day..

http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/legacy/110496-speech-by-president-in-cleveland-oh.htm

BTW, that day, Nov. 4, 1996, also saw the first James Gang Reunion with Joe Walsh and friends playing the National Anthem, Rocky Mountain High, Walk Away and Funk #49. Great day, great speech by Gore.

That was 1994. He's always been a passionate speaker when you get him wound up in front of a live crowd.

[Truth2Tell]

53. Maybe the media could afford to ignore him or marginalize him

at that time. I never saw that side of him til after 2000. :shrug: Too bad.

[jpgray]

54. Did you see the coverage of his (dead on) Iraq 2002 speech? The WaPo review of his book?

They are still trying to ignore and marginalize him. It's not working quite as well, however.

[OzarkDem]

56. Oh, I remember that one

it was planned at the last minute, IIRC. He really scorched Bush/Cheney.

[OzarkDem]

55. He stayed in the background during his years as Veep

leaving the spotlight to Big Dog.

But he always gave barn burner speeches when out on the stump for Clinton, himself or the party.

[bobbolink]

31. Go ahead and hate it. He has more spine.

[Xithras]

32. Gore's advisors forced him into a centrist niche in 2000, costing him the election.

Yeay yeah, I know about stolen votes, but a properly run election wouldn't have been close enough to steal. Gore lost because his campaign tried to paint him as the pro-business centrist moderate successor to Bill Clinton. A politician cut from the same cloth. His environmentalist credentials were considered a liability and were soft pedaled, 'Earth In The Balance' was written off as the ideology of a youthful senator, and discussions of the Kyoto or other environmental treaties were avoided. Calls to end the sanctions against Iraq, which were killing thousands of innocent people a year, were never addressed.

Many liberals were sick of the Clinton era pro-corporate centrism that had dominated Washington since the early 90's and wanted a REAL progressive candidate. Gore had the history and personal ideology to be that candidate, but instead listened to his advisors and buried it. Nader took 2.8 million of those fed-up progressives away from him, and the rest is history.

Gore has reinvented himself in that he's allowing us to see the real Al Gore again. The one that held the first hearings on global warming in the 1970's, the one who co-sponsored hearings and rallied against toxic waste dumping and deforestation in the 1980's. The Gore that wrote 'Earth in the Balance'. He isn't doing anything new, but he's no longer hiding who he really is as a marketing ploy to attract those centrist voters.

If he'd done that in 2000, most of those Nader voters would have gone for Al.

[Virginia Dare]

40. Really? Because I saw just the opposite..

I think when Bush reinvented himself as a moderate, Gore was forced to go populist, and distanced himself from Clinton.

[OzarkDem]

46. Very true, "reinvention" was a GOP/news media term

used in 2000 to make it appear as though Gore was uncertain, indecisive, etc.

Its hogwash, he's the same as he's always been if you've paid close enough attention to his political career. He was the candidate least likely to "reinvent" himself; he doesn't need to, never has.

[Orsino]

57. What's wrong with reinventing oneself?

Gore has changed, and for the better.

If it's the right-wing spin you fear, I guess I understand. There are connotations of artificiality in the term.