Daily Kos

Al Gore, Spin, and Hillary Clinton

Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:01:01 PM PDT

Yesterday I responded to Chris Bowers' entry regarding a potential Al Gore candidacy for president in 2008. In his rant, Bowers made the flimsy case that Gore is supposedly too unpopular, too lackluster a candidate to win the White House. Significantly, he based his entire piece on data that is more than three years old, roughly equivalent to a century when converted to media cycles.

We now see that the lines have been drawn--not by the grassroots but by those who inform them, and it is apparent that 2008 will indeed be Hillary Clinton vs Someone Else. But I believe, as a Democrat, that this potential civil war is entirely beside the point. My fervent advocation of an Al Gore presidency has nothing to do with stopping Hillary Clinton, as Bowers and Kos have pitifully attempted to illustrate. No, I have an entirely and siginficantly more important reason for endorsing Gore.

For me, this ain't about Hillary. This is about America.

This evening, both of the left's reknown blogger-journalists, Chris Bowers and Markos Moulistas--whose work I regard with high respect--declared Al Gore's candidacy dead-on-arrival as the man himself issued a non-statement on his willingness to run for president. Both of these guys, of course, failed to include the following sentence in their spin jockeying:

"I don't completely rule out some future interest"

Now, in the mind of a politician, what might such words indicate? Well, they certainly tell me that he has put some level of thought in the presidency, at the very least. More importantly, however, is not what Gore might be saying, but what he doesn't say: "I will never run for president again." These words, as far as I can tell, have never left Gore's mouth.

The Clinton Crowd wants to make a Gore candidacy about Hillary, and not about fighting for America--which is really where we so-called "Goristas" are at. They have fervently and slyly advocated a 2008 campaign for Clinton in brief and furtive remarks throughout their articles, posts and analyses in the past several months. Today, their objective has been exposed for its homeliness as an attempt by Hillary Clinton to head off a horse race with her most feared challenger of 2008 before he's even left the stable.

It is, indeed, a depressing fact to uncover. But with the advocation of a Clinton campaign now featuring prominently on the front page of Bowers' blog, it is also one that is undeniable and remarkable for the expediency in which it followed a rebuttal of Gore's candidacy.

This sort of underhanded and always, of course, plausibly deniable political maneuvering is unexceptable in a place where open discussion is absolutely essential to defending the Democratic cause. That Bowers and Kos seek to defeat a Gore candidacy through division and derision, without publicly stating their blatant bias for Hillary Clinton, is absurd and offensive, no matter how respectable their work is and has been.

If these accusations are repsonded to at all, such a response will almost certainly contain a plausible denial. They might accuse some of tin foil-hat conspiracy theorizing, but we have seen their brazen maneuvering made public and it is no longer ridiculous to make such assumptions.

The Clinton Crowd would have us forget Al Gore and draw a line between he, reason, and Hillary. They say that we want Gore because we don't want her. And they will say that we are the ones fighting against the progressive sect of the party by battling for the nomination of a man known for his diligence and supposed centrism.

But that is not what we Gore supporters are about. We want Gore not because we despise Hillary Clinton, which many of us do not, but because we want our country back. We want a strong economy again. We want to raise the minimum wage, we want acceptable health care, we want to stop global warming, we want to save the environment and we want to bring our soldiers home. In short, we want the best, and the best is Al Gore.

I do not need to say why Gore is the best. We all know why: because he fights for what he BELIEVES in, and not what will get him elected. It's time for a president who BELIEVES in America's promise. It's time for Democrats to stand up and fight. It's time for the best.

It's time for Al Gore.

Tags: Grassroots, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, president, 2008 elections, Winning, America (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 33 comments

  •  wait? (none / 1)

    Kos has a bias for Hillary Clinton????

    I want to win. You want to beat him, and that's a problem for me, because I want to win. -The West Wing

    by AnnArborBlue on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:56:25 PM PDT

  •  Um, (none / 0)

    I like Gore as well.  But, how exactly does "I don't completely rule out some future interest" translate into "it is apparent that 2008 will indeed be Hillary Clinton vs Al Gore"?
  •  If you feel the need... (4.00 / 13)

    I appreciate any displeasure or applause regarding my diary expressed by rating this comment, aka, I want a damn tip jar.
  •  Although I think you misread Kos (4.00 / 4)

    I don't agree with him that Al Gore has foreclosed the possibility of running in 2008.

    I, for one, hope that he does run and would support him over any other possible nominee I could think of.

  •  I look at it this way: (4.00 / 2)

    Gore wasn't an ideal candidate--his speechifying doesn't exactly set the world on fire--but he'd have made a damn fine President.

    Hell, he IS the President, or at least the last legitimately elected one.

  •  Hmm (4.00 / 2)

    I'm not sure you have read Kos correctly. I haven't noticed any cheerleading for Hillary here.  Perhaps you noticed some subtlety I did not.

    However, I do think Kos's characterization of Gore's statement is a deliberate attempt to discourage people from supporting, or even THINKING of, a Gore candidacy.  It goes along with his failure to include Gore in straw polls where even Vilsack is included.  Vilsack's major contribution to Presidential politics has been to help the machine smash Dean in Iowa.  Didn't recommend him to me.

    I'm very, very disappointed that Kos has chosen to discourage interest in Gore. Gore is clearly our best man.

  •  Whether Gore runs or not is beside the point. (none / 0)

    And whether this has anything to do with Hillary Clinton is beside the point.

    The real point is that kos never changed his headline.  His headline is a lie.

    I have no stake in the issue either way.  I don;t care if Gore runs or not.  But for kos to maintain that headline shows just how petty he can be.

    What a load of shit.

  •  OMG. THIS Is Unreal (1.00 / 2)

    if Al Gorf is the Best we can manage to dredge up and expect the voters to muster one iota of motivation for.. then INDEED the democratic party is in serious, serious trouble.

    you're talking about a candidate so entirely feeble that he couldn't even muster a win in his own home state, and several other states which were a lock for Clinton.

    please get a clue. some of you are very deep in denial here.

    "Cigna cannot decide who is going to live and who is going to die." -- Nataline's mother

    by Superpole on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:32:54 PM PDT

    •  During the 1990s (none / 1)

      Tennessee gradually went Republican. East Tennessee was already very conservative.  Not to mention, Gore was no longer representing Just Tennessee, his Vice Presidency meant he was assisting Clinton in representing the entire nation.

      In 2000, Tennessee had 2 GOP Senators, a majority GOP house delegation, and a GOP Governor. Just like Utah.  Should Gore have won Utah too?

      You say that Gore lost states that were a lock for Clinton. Perahps they would have stayed as such if Slick Willy kept his damn pecker in his pants, as opposed to putting in into Monica Lewinsky's mouth.

      •  Good response. (none / 0)

        I'm so sick of hearing about Gore "losing" Tennessee.  The state is too conservative to vote for him, or any Democratic nominee, now that the Rethugs have stirred up hysteria about guns and fetuses and getting God back into the schools. To win Tennessee, Gore would have to take a number of positions that would certainly lose the support of Kossacks!
        •  Weak Response (none / 0)

          there's quite a disconnect here.

          clearly there are a number of folks here clinging to the belief that numerous swing voters IN RED STATES who are going to vote democratic in the next presidential election.. if only we have the right candidate.

          but here you're implying that between 1996 when Clinton WON TN and 2000 when Gore managed to LOSE TN, that in that 3.5 to 4 year span, Tennessee turned into a huge red state.. basically overnight? and that NOBODY other than a total conservative can now win TN?

          please give me a break.

          in addition, if there are several states.. we may as well also talk about Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virgina, South Carolina, Florida that are now "locks" as red states.. just what states does the democratic party intend to WIN to make up the obvious defecit in electoral votes?

          "Cigna cannot decide who is going to live and who is going to die." -- Nataline's mother

          by Superpole on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:55:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Clinton/Gore won TN by 2.4% in 1996 (none / 1)

        These factors below sufficiently explain Gore's TN loss for me:
        • Clinton/Gore won TN by only 2.4% in 1996 (link)
        • Clinton had an extramarital fallatio performed to him, and got impeached for it, that contibuted heavily to a 12-20% deficit in the presidential polls for Gore against Bush in 3/99.
        • TN is a one of the reddest, and "bible-beltiest" states in the US.
        • there has been a steady southern red-shift since the late 60s, which was quite precipitous during the Clinton years, for partly obvious reasons.

        From the wiki page on the 1996 election, , here were the close states in that election:


        Close states in 1996

           1. Kentucky, 0.96%
           2. Nevada, 1.02%
           3. Georgia, 1.17%
           4. Colorado, 1.37%
           5. Virginia, 1.96%
           6. Arizona, 2.22%
          7. Tennessee, 2.41%
           8. Montana, 2.88%
           9. South Dakota, 3.46%
          10. North Carolina, 4.69%
          11. Texas, 4.93%
          12. Mississippi, 5.13%
          13. Indiana, 5.58%
         14. Florida, 5.70%
          15. South Carolina, 6.04%
          16. Missouri, 6.30%
         17. Ohio, 6.36%
          18. North Dakota, 6.81%
          19. Alabama, 6.97%
          20. New Mexico, 7.33%
          21. Oklahoma, 7.81%
          22. Oregon, 8.09%
          23. Pennsylvania, 9.20%
          24. New Hampshire, 9.95%

        I am willing to state that Gore would've won in a landslide, had it not been for the blow job (despite the part of red-shift that was unrelated to the blowjob/impeachment). Yes, Clinton had fun, and Gore ended up paying for it.

        Most of us Gore-supporters don't really want to make a potential Gore run in 2008 to be about the 2000 election, but the provocative and specious posts like yours induce the need to do so.

        •  correction (none / 0)

          well, for the nitpickers:

          2. Clinton had an extramarital fallatio performed to him, lied about it, and got impeached for the latter. And that contibuted heavily to a  12-20% deficit in the presidential polls for Gore against Bush in 3/99.

        •  Please GET REAL (none / 0)

          and please learn how to spell fellatio.

          the margin by which Clinton/Gore won TN and other swing states is totally irrelevant. what matters is they WON those states and the pertinent electoral votes-- and thus won the election.

          if you want to talk margin then let's DO talk about the margin by which Kerry lost OHIO to Bush and thus lost the election.

          SOME of you have somehow lost the fundamental equation here: it's about electoral votes, stupid.

          the "Clinton got blown" excuse as to why Gore lost in 2000 is about as weak as it gets. I truly have seen everything now.

          what a load.

          "Cigna cannot decide who is going to live and who is going to die." -- Nataline's mother

          by Superpole on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:30:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (none / 0)

            -->"and please learn how to spell fellatio."

            Bravo, master!

            -->"the margin by which Clinton/Gore won TN and other swing states is totally irrelevant. what matters is they WON those states and the pertinent electoral votes-- and thus won the election."

            I was explaining a trend which lead to Gore losing TN, an often thrown about criticism.

            -->"if you want to talk margin then let's DO talk about the margin by which Kerry lost OHIO to Bush and thus lost the election."

            I won't disagree with that. But, Kerry was given some 300 million (+ some 300 million outside help), and a 5-10% lead over Bush in Jan-Feb'05 to win that goddamn election.

            -->"SOME of you have somehow lost the fundamental equation here: it's about electoral votes, stupid."

            No, we haven't. We are much too aware of that.

            -->"the "Clinton got blown" excuse as to why Gore lost in 2000 is about as weak as it gets. I truly have seen everything now."

            what a load"

            Your statement is BS, in turn. I have numbers to show the effect of the blowjob/impeachment on Gore (Yes, it was the most critical reason for the "loss"). But, I have a suspicion that it won't be a useful discussion with you.

            so take your attitude and take a hike.

          •  asdf (none / 0)

            With your "Al Gorf" opening line at the top, you have established your intellectual mettle, as that of a raging troll.

            So, beat it.

    •  pffftt..... lol (none / 1)

      Gore got more votes than Clinton ever did, including in those states that when to Clinton and not to Gore.  Clinton won because of Perot.
      •  Load (none / 0)

        you're kidding, right?

        Clinton won in 1996 because of Perot?

        gimme a break.

        "Cigna cannot decide who is going to live and who is going to die." -- Nataline's mother

        by Superpole on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:49:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no I am not kidding (none / 0)

          look at the numbers.  More people voted for Gore than Clinton.  
          Perot killed bush and Dole both because he took votes in key states they needed to win.
          •  C'mon Teresa (none / 0)

            I agree-- there's no question Perot hurt poppy Bush in the 1992 election-- way more than Nader allegedly hurt Gore in 2000.

            but that's where midget man's influence begins and ends. he had nothing to do with Clinton winning in 1996. forget it.

            and the point is NOT that Gore got more votes than Clinton. the point is (and always will be) that he did not get those votes in the correct states in terms of the electoral tally.

            get real, please. you can't just rack up popular votes in places like Cali and Illinois which are solid dem states anyway-- and forget about states like Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida and so forth.

            gimme a break. it's about ELECTORAL votes and you know it.

            "Cigna cannot decide who is going to live and who is going to die." -- Nataline's mother

            by Superpole on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:21:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know what is in Kos's (none / 0)

    mind....but one thing I do know, it's probably too early to make Gore the front runner, already tonight Hanney is trashing Gore's name...let someone else be the front runner ....for now. We have to be patient.

    Will the elite be happy living behind gated communities in the potential meltdown? Peace now. -7.00, -2.92

    by mattes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:42:22 PM PDT

    •  This is all happening too fast (none / 0)

      We haven't even gotten through next year's elections. He says he has no plans now. He is busy working everyday to bring out truth and information about climate change and other  issues. He is trying to change the way television delivers information by allowing us to become a part of it. There is so much about this man we could discuss now, and all we are doing is getting bogged down in speculation and political pissing matches about him and Clinton.

      Even though I don't think he should run under the same status quo that stole the 2000 election, I would still support him down the line if he said he wanted to run. BUT THERE IS TIME. I just don't understand the feeding  frenzy and urgency of getting this out now when there is so much we need to be concentrating on in this country.  

      And that is another good point. He is already being trashed because groups have already given the impression that all the speeches he has been making (and right down to his airlifting of evacues from New Orleans) were done for political reasons. That is unfair to him. So perhaps Gore gave that comment today in the hopes that all of this way too early speculation would quiet down a bit. As you said, there is time, and right now I believe this country has some pressing matters WE need to attend to, and I am kind of enjoying having Mr. Gore out here  wotking with us on them as opposed to being in the beltway again.

      "I miss the ability to influence events, but I don't miss politics."
      Al Gore In LIFE
      Bergen Record, June 23, 2006

      by Patriot for Al Gore on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:45:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Didn't Bowers declare for all to see (none / 0)

    that he blogs for Hillary --like several months ago?

    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

    by bronte17 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:48:40 PM PDT

  •  Wow, what a passionate diary. (none / 1)

    I agree with you 100%. Gore is the only man that can save the country 3 years from now. The fact that we will need a strong leader in 08 and someone with stature, strength and toughness to take on the issues that will be before him after Bush is swept out and the mischief that the GOP will make, means Gore is the one to do it.

    Your words in this diary are so true and if we all don't realize this, we are doomed. It has to be Al Gore in 08!!!

    "These guys are biggest bunch of lying crooks I have ever seen" John Kerry

    by alnc on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:22:14 PM PDT

  •  I'm all for Mr. Gore running again... (none / 0)

    get those 8 years we were cheated.

    But let's lay off the Kos-man. We ARE swimmin in his pool. The title's a bit misleading, yes. But it's HIS diary. He can do and say as he pleases, just as any of us can.

    I do so wish he'd reconsider though. Al's come a LONG way since 2K. He's got the fire in his belly now, and I think that's what we need.

    Hillary's playing politics still, hasn't realized this is no longer just politics, this is WAR (of a sort)!

    "Change is the constant, the signal for rebirth, the egg of the phoenix."

    -Christina Baldwin

    by Erevann on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:05:28 PM PDT

  •  Gore, Gore, Gore (none / 0)

    You don't need to know more......

    I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks in Sozadee CA.

    by The Messenger on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:39:33 PM PDT

Permalink | 33 comments