Skip to main content

View Diary: Will Somebody Please STOP Maureen Dowd (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Gore Deserved Some of the Criticism & Ribbing (3+ / 0-)

    If we're being honest with ourselves, Gore was not the best presidential candidate, and he did not run the best presidential campaign.  He deserved some of the criticism he got.

    And I certainly would not want to shut up Dowd.  Lately she has written many excellent columns criticizing Bush and Bushco, unveiling their incompetence and hypocrisy - columns much more scathing than just about anything she wrote about Gore.

    •  I remember Gore circa 1999 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mango

      And he deserved a lot of ribbing. He turned his back on Clinton. He was stiff and didn't seem comfortable in his own skin. I wanted him very badly to be president, but he ran a lousy campaign. He deserved Dowd's ribbing.

      Oh, and this ain't fair use.

      •  He turned his back on Clinton because Clinton (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lezlie

        was loser in 2000, his personal rating was low and polls showed that people didn't want a "third Clinton term". They wanted change. Clinton's scandals were the reason why Gore had to start the campaign well down in the polls with double digit -- despite his won high job approval rating, around 60%.

        Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for Al Gore for president if President Clinton were actively support him and campaign for him?
        More likely 29%
        Less likely 52%

        http://www.cnn.com/...

        As for stiff? Who the fuck cares? Grow wup. He was not running for dance instructor but for president.
        You would call Truman and Teddy Roosevelt stiff in a the current superficial inane political culture people like Down and you have built up in the TV era.

        Gore didn't ran a lousy campaign for one simply reason: his proposals made sense while Bush's proposals didn't. That's the only thing that matters in the presidency and therefore the only thing that should matter in presidental campaigns.

        If you don't understand that that's your fault not Gore's.

        •  You're talking about... (0+ / 0-)

          ...a campaign run for rational people.

          I'm talking about a campaign run given the reality of the American political landscape.

          We've known since 1960 that a president needs to be telegenic and a good performer in front of an audience. We can gnash our teeth at this truth, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.

          I voted for Gore and very much wanted him to win in 2000, but the faults that Dowd points out are very precisely, IMO, the faults that cost him the 2000 election. He ran a poor campaign given what the American people want. He needed more passion and he needed to be perceived as less stiff. If he had had more passion and been less stiff, the Supreme Court wouldn't have been able to determine the outcome of the election.

    •  Name one thing in this 'criticism' that had ANY (0+ / 0-)

      substance? Any significance.

      Name one thing that had anythign to do with the job itself Gore was running for.

    •  Gore beat Badley in EVERY state. That's it about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lezlie

      your "bad campaign" theory.

      He was the only Dem candidate in history who could win every primary state with a serious opponent in the race.

      Down can eat her "criticism". The voters didn't buy it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site