Skip to main content

View Diary: Book Review: Al Gore's "Assault on Reason" (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Gore is the same man. (0+ / 0-)

    "I remember well the public Al Gore of the 2000 campaign; this is not the same man."

    Oh puleeze...he was the "same man" in his recent NPR interview with Gwen Ifill...inappropriate smiling, pedantic, purposely opaque in his answers. That was most disturbing since his vagueness and equivocation on issues were the biggest reasons for his loss in 2000.

    You would think, freed up from having to be all things to all people in a political campaign, Gore would be more comfortable being himself but it's just not something he can do. He is the same person who lost 2000 and he'd lose again for the same reasons.

    You keep wondering what the real Al Gore is like. Those who know him keep saying how different he is in person or in small groups but that misses the point that you have to be that way in public, with large audiences. It's just not in Gore's makeup.

    Contrast that with the personas of an Edwards or an Obama who have an empathic public presence. Some folks have it, some folks don't. Gore just doesn't have it. Doesn't mean he's not a good person. He's just not a good public politician...in the best sense of the word.

    There's was a picture of Gore after giving Congressional testimony a few months ago that caught Gore perfectly.

    He was standing at the curb with an aide, waiting for his car. He was standing perfectly straight, feet together, arms at his side, looking straight ahead, looking like a robot that had been turned off. Gore lacks the je ne sais quoi (apologies to Jerome a Paris) of personality to win elections.

    •  What in the hell does this mean: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snacksandpop, dcreba, Dianna

      He was standing at the curb with an aide, waiting for his car. He was standing perfectly straight, feet together, arms at his side, looking straight ahead

      Should he be jumping up and down?  Pacing back and forth?  I don't understand what in the hell you're talking about here.  I understand that you hate Gore, but that's no reason to look at everything he does through your tiny little prism of hatred.

      "I heard you and I will not forget." - Al Gore

      by 0wn on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 09:59:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He should have been in relaxed normal stance (0+ / 0-)

        but it was just not in Gore's nature. As far as he was concerned he was in public so his rigid, controlled public persona was engaged.  He just doesn't have the engaging public persona.  Not everyone has it. Not everyone can be an effective public leader.

        The reason "Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar was because of Gore's geeky persona matched with the enormity of the problem of global warming and a skillful film maker who used that contrast to tell the story. The personality that made the movie effective is the same personality that makes Gore ineffective as a political leader.

        Gore will not enter the race but he will make himself available at the Denver convention on the long shot that it is not wrapped up by then.

      •  Whoa! Please don't accuse Salmon (0+ / 0-)

        of "hatred" for Gore. A critique of Gore is not equivalent to hating him. Let's keep the conversation civilized.

        I think, therefore I am, I think.

        by mcmom on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 10:58:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dianna

          He was standing at the curb with an aide, waiting for his car. He was standing perfectly straight, feet together, arms at his side, looking straight ahead

          How exactly does that qualify as a legitimate critique?  Who doesn't look like that while their standing on a curb waiting for a car?  

          IMO, that type of "critique" signals to me that this person is just looking for reasons to hate Gore.

          "I heard you and I will not forget." - Al Gore

          by 0wn on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 11:43:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  WTF? (0+ / 0-)

          Give it a rest mcmom, I am not buying your act.

        •  Hey... (0+ / 0-)

          Have you looked at the hidden comments of the commenter?  It turns out that I was right.  It is pure hatred of Gore that drives his comments.

          "The fact that this administration can't manage it's own way out of a horseshow doesn't mean that all government programs should be abolished." - Al Gore

          by 0wn on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 07:23:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Please answer the questions: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TeresaInPa, snacksandpop, Dianna
      1. are you the same person as the banned poster Pharlap
      1. do you work for the coal industry?
      •  I just did. (0+ / 0-)

        Is it the Obama supporters behind every tree that are scaring you?  They all do look alike don't they ;)

        Hmmm or are you online with multiple sock puppets and think everyone else does the same thing?

        My god...that's it...there's only one "Gore Again" supporter with a boatload of sock puppets.

        OK NeuovoLiberal...just answer the question...are you or have you ever been a Gore sock puppet?

        •  actually, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snacksandpop

          I am an Obama supporter (if he withdraws his co-sponsorship of the liquid-coal bill).

          My god...that's it...there's only one "Gore Again" supporter with a boatload of sock puppets.

          There are tens of thousands of "Gore Again" supporters among the members here (about 50-60 thousand of registered users, going by 50% or more support Gore gets here).

          FYI, I am more of a defender of Gore from false and specious troll nonsense the likes of you dispense.

          OK NeuovoLiberal...just answer the question...are you or have you ever been a Gore sock puppet?

          No.

          OTOH, here are the similarities between you and Pharlap

          • both bash Gore using similar nonsense memes
          • both have a funny way of embedding links on entire paragraphs
          • both use similar language about coal and liquid coal technology
          •  So you are not an Obama supporter. (0+ / 0-)

            "I am an Obama supporter (if he withdraws his co-sponsorship of the liquid-coal bill)."

            He's not so you're not but what is that to me?

            "There are tens of thousands of "Gore Again" supporters among the members here..."

            From your bizarre comments, I'm thinking it's you and "tens of thousands" of your marinetas ;)

            "Gore Again" is the perfect description, faith over reason, another assault on reason in US politics.

            •  Gore is best qualified to be President. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dianna, Picot verde, 0wn
              •  Nope..Gore lacks the leadership personality (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gzodik

                You are looking at it from a technocrat standpoint but that is not what political leadership in the best and worst sense is all about.

                Our best leaders are not the technocrats, the legislative genius LBJ or the skillful cold warrior Nixon but the inspirational, charismatic JFK and FDR.  Even Reagan, though he lead the US in the wrong direction, was very skillful at getting elected and translating that into building a political consensus to get his policies implemented.

                Gore simply lacks the personality. Hillary Clinton has the same problem.

                Edwards and Obama are our best choices to win.  

                Obama is THE best because of his being right on Iraq. He is the only candidate who can challenge the Republicans who are all running on the Iraq war being the right thing to do, even if Bush mismanaged it.

                Obama wins that debate...and the election.

                •  Fuck charisma (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ChemBob, bess, Dianna, 0wn

                  Edwards and Obama have not experience to show that they are leaders. If anything, Edwards is the opposite of leadership, given how he promoted the war relentlessly when it was popular (and helped make it popular in turn). Obama has hardly delivered any substantial results  of the presidential caliber for anyone to draw the conclusion that he has th leadership at the level needed.

                  You are looking at it from a technocrat standpoint but that is not what political leadership in the best and worst sense is all about.

                  I am looking at rational and objetive standpoint. Please stop the "technocratic" nonsense. Are you getting your talking points from neocons?

                  It was always overrated. We need leaders that think and will make other think. Al Gore is best equipped to do that.

                  •  Everyone wants to that's why it's called charisma (0+ / 0-)

                    Courted is probably a better word though.

                    •  Gore shook up the race with his convention (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      0wn

                      speech in 2000. Overnight, he went from 10-15 points under to a few points over.

                      He rocks the audiences in most of speeches. He is a bit unrelaxed on TV, which can be easily fixed, but despite that Gore is well liked and respected when people get to hear from him, instead of spinners and smearers on Fox News, brought to DKos by the likes of you.

                      So Gore has charisma of his own.

                      My "fuck charisma" is addressed at vain arguments you're making that we should choose the next leader of the free world based on charisma.

                      Like I told you, Obama's unfavorables clocked 44% recently. In the end, the corrupt media and dishonest rhetoric (including yours) is what plagues the political system. Time to reform the whole damn thing.

                      Forget charisma, we don't even want so many politicians. We need direct democracy. Thanks to Al Gore's vision about the internet, it is feasible now to do that. We need a few high timber and character leaders to set the stage for a direct democracy (with extremely restricted lobbying, full public financing of elections). It is such reforms that we need to work towards, in addition to fixing the country on so many fronts. Gore is best qualified for all of this.

                      Haven't you done enough trolling for a day?

    •  I have to say, and said it before, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snacksandpop, Salmon

      and got tromped on: Gore did not have a good interview with Ifil. If you didn't look at the screen, his answers seemed okay, but he did smile at the wrong times, and did seem like a kid who is trying to say the right thing. I know I am going to get kicked to hell and back for saying this, but I will also say that he was electrifying when doing his presentation at BSU, and he was genial and warm in his conversations and remarks at the fund raiser for the Frank Church Institute beforehand. I wish there was some way to get the passion he feels into his political performance. He needs to jetison the Southern Gentleman, and become a Missourian, kick butt, like Harry Truman.

      I think, therefore I am, I think.

      by mcmom on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 10:56:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think your comment is constructive (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mcmom, Salmon

        criticism, mcmom. OTOH, Salmon/Pharlap is just a troll.

        In fact, if VP Gore is reading, I'd like to make an unsolicited suggestion as well: Mr. Gore, please consider the audience when you appear on TV to be your family, instead of someone trying to make judgements. That IMO would help you to be more relaxed.

      •  Thanks....that's what I saw too...deja Gore 2000 (0+ / 0-)

        it struck me...THAT's why he lost.

        Most interesting comment of the 2000 election was by Rove who said Bush should never have won...that it was a long shot because Clinton provided such a great basis for Gore...a good economy, budget surpluses, stable world situation and a hugely popular previous Democratic president.

        Yes Gore was a bland campaigner but Bush was no Ronald Reagan either and it just should not have been close.

        It was Gore who lost, not Bush who won.  The Gwen Ifill interview was WHY Gore lost in a nutshell.

        You just wanted to reach through the screen and shake him and tell him to STOP IT as Gore reprised his 2000 performance all over again.

        •  This comment on the other hand isn't (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bess, 0wn

          based on facts.

          THAT's why he lost.

          Gore didn't lose. He won

          Most interesting comment of the 2000 election was by Rove who said Bush should never have won...that it was a long shot because Clinton provided such a great basis for Gore...a good economy, budget surpluses, stable world situation and a hugely popular previous Democratic president.

          Clinton didn't "provide" these for free. Gore worked his ass off as Clinton's partner.

          However, Clinton handicapped Gore to double digit deficits with his reckless behavior.

             NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll

          Date Gore Bush Other

          9/97 45 39 16
          4/18-20/98 41 44 15
          6/18-21/98 40 44 16
          9/10-13/98 39 49 12
          10/24-27/98 40 48 12
          12/3-6/98 40 50 10
          3/4-7/99 34 52 14
          4/17-19/99 35 53 12
          6/16-19/99 36 51 13
          7/24-26/99 37 50 13
          9/9-12/99 35 52 13
          10/23-25/99 39 49 12
          12/9-12/99 39 50 11
          ...
          Election day 48.4 47.9

            Before the scandal (9/97), he lead by 6 points.
            After the scandal/impeachment/trial (3/99), he trailed by 18 points.
            Scandal impact: 24 points net negative for Gore
           
            Gore's gain from 3/99: 18.5

          Gore won against significant odds: 2000 election synopsis.

          It is also worth noting that Gore won 86% among Dems, while Clinton received only 84% of the Dem vote in 1996 running as an incumbent without the burden of his or someone else's scandals. Gore's 48.4% under harsh conditions, while Clinton only registered 49% under about the best conditions possible.

          ~~~~~~~

          BTW, pharlap, eventhough I like Obama, I'd like you to know that Obama's unfavorables have now risen to 44%. The whole shindig about the US system is that it is corrupted by the very elements Gore talks about in his book. The entire barrage of your attacks is unfounded because you're drawing inferences based on what happend in a fouled system, which as should be increasing clear to you from the recent rise in Obama's unfavorables that the same can be done to anyone including Obama.

          ~~~~~~~

          Please stop you inane trolling activity. I am objective person and acknowledge facts even if they're inconvenient, as here. By the same token, I do not tolerate lies, and you tell many spins, lies, and repeat untrue memes.

      •  I see what you mean ;) (0+ / 0-)

        "and got tromped on"

        Got the weirdest off the wall attacks for suggesting Gore is not a real fireball candidate. Gore makes jokes about his wooden persona but his faithful here see Al of Arc.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site