Skip to main content

View Diary: Why I hope Gore is our next President [update] (420 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We understand your "point" (none)
    But what is your rationale?

    Dukakis and Mondale were buried.

    Gore won. Or just barely lost...whatever.

    Gore held up far better than either of the others against the right-wing slime machine and the corrupt, cynical, SCLM.

    Gore has maintained and burnished his reputation as a leader of national stature, with intelligence, savvy and vision.

    So, please explain your reasoning behind "the idea of Gore running in 2008 is no more legitimate than Dukakis or Mondale running"

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi

    by Sunporch on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 11:53:16 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Gore (none)
      Because Dukakis and Mondale were running uphill against Reagan (Bush I was a Reagan victory)  Gore was running downhill and pissed it away.  Eight years of Clinton success against an illiterate moron (don't give me the Clinton scandal bullshit because it didn't hurt Clinton, how could it hurt Gore)and he couldn't pull it off (by enough to overcome Republican cheating)

      Doesn't anybody remember 2000 when everybody was bitching about Gore being a terrible candidate?  I managed to talk most of my friends into not voting for Nader, but they all wanted to because Gore was so bad.  Even the people who voted for Gore in 2000 didn't like him.  In 2000 Gore was the DLC guy, against the liberal Bill Bradley.  Gore ran the dirty campaign to knock Bradley out and alienated a bunch of people.  His running mate was Joe Fucking Lieberman.  Gore was an awkward stiff dork.  He managed to lose three debates to Bush by being an awkward stiff dork and sighing.  All the media slime stuck to him and defined him.  That does not happen to a good candidate.

      You read the posts now, and Gore is like the second coming of Jesus Christ.  Everything will be fixed the second time around.  Bullshit.  A candidate does not make than many mistakes and use such bad judgment and fix it the next time.  He is simply a bad candidate.  

      It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

      by lando on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 12:37:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I still largely disagree (none)
        ...but I appreciate your willingness to flesh out your point of view.

        The biggest "mistake" Gore made was not aggressively countering the smear campaign that the GOP concocted and the SCLM gleefully supported. But who knows, it was kind of a no win situation, since the national media punditocracy was heavily aligned against him (a point that Bob Somerby has ably blogged/flogged).

        I hope we are ALL wiser to this now.

        I suspect that, if Gore chose to run again, he would run a much more savvy, agressive campaign.  But who knows.

        Having said that, I am open to any viable progressive democrat.  I've heard Russ Feingold speak, I really like him.  

        "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi

        by Sunporch on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 08:43:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gore (none)
          I like Al Gore.  He would have been a good president.  My problem that the romantacism of Gore on DailyKos.  I am sure that if you asked a lot of the same people about Gore 5 years ago they would have ripped him.

          The thing I can't figure out is why Gore, and then Kerry, did not aggressively counter the smear campaign.  Did they not thing it was coming?  Clinton responded on a daily basis.  Whatever they threw at him that day, he had a response ready.   My main requirement for a candidate in 2008 is someone who realizes from the get go that the GOP is not going to play nice.

          It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

          by lando on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 10:11:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  part of the problem (none)
            Part of the problem seemed to be that the national press hated Gore...or at least amused themselves by acting like they hated Gore.

            As a result, Bush spin was passed along uncritically and Gore's people had a hell of a time getting any message across.

            To compound things, Bush (according to a news cameraman pal of mine that had spent time with both campaigns), aggressively courted the local TV media. This paid off in a lot of uncritical, fawning local market coverage. Gore's campaign, on the other hand, had a reputation among local news outlets, as being uninterested in local coverage and difficult to coordinate with. Bad tactic, especially when the national press and pundit corps were ripping him daily while giving Bush a pass.

            I think the reason people are more forgiving of Gore now is that they know more about what actually happened...in contrast to what the SCLM told them happened.  People were unexcited about Gore because the SCLM told them Gore was unexciting. People (even Gore's supporters) thought Gore was a liar because the SCLM told them that Gore was a liar.

            Rank and file Dems and independents have become much wiser and more cynical, and tougher. I think that many think, and hope, that Gore is too.

            "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi

            by Sunporch on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 10:33:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (160)
  • Community (66)
  • Baltimore (48)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Culture (31)
  • Law (25)
  • Elections (24)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Texas (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • 2016 (18)
  • Environment (18)
  • Media (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site