In what is seemingly his first interview in a long, long while, Al Gore met up with Vanity Fair and let us in on his thoughts about the 2000 election - something, to my knowledge, he has never done before. He and Tipper talk about the media, their feelings after the stolen election, his post-2000 image, and even a little bit about 2008. Perhaps most importantly though, as many supporters and pundits predicted, the radio silence has been broken, and if he has plans to run in 2008, expect more of this between now and an announcement.
After first, in my opinion, inaccurately calling him names like a "calculating dork" and pompous, the article takes a first look at his revamped image:
Today, by contrast, Gore is "the Goreacle," the elder statesman of global activism, and something of a media darling. He is the Bono of the environment, the Cassandra of Iraq, the star of an Oscar-winning film, and a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. To the amusement of his kids, some people now actually consider him cool. "If you had told me 10 years ago that people were going to be appealing to me for tickets to a hot rock concert through my parents, I would have fallen over," says his daughter Karenna Gore Schiff, 34, referring to the Live Earth 24-hour extravaganza in July.
In Gore's book The Assault on Reason, he chastises the media for not doing its job - for restricting us to one-way passage of information and for reporting on trivialities like celebrity relationships and the like. The article speaks volumes to his assertions with well-known anchormen and reporters saying very much the same thing:
The media began the coverage of the 2000 election with an inclination not so different from that demonstrated in other recent elections—they were eager for simple, character-driven narratives that would sell papers and get ratings. "Particularly in presidential elections ... we in the press tend to deal in caricatures," says Dan Rather, who was then anchoring for CBS. "Someone draws a caricature, and it's funny and at least whimsical. And at first you sort of say, 'Aw shucks, that's too simple.' In the course of the campaign, that becomes accepted wisdom." He notes, "I do not except myself from this criticism."
Also:
Eric Pooley, who covered him for Time magazine, says, "He brought out the creative-writing student in so many reporters.... Everybody kind of let loose on the guy."
Nice to see them criticize themselves and the rest of the media, but as far as I'm concerned, they are seven years too late. The article goes on to look at the media distorting other claims such as Gore inventing the Internet and the Love Canal mess. Likewise, they observe how a campaign can be turned on its head by one or two lowly beat writers, in this case, Katharine Seelye from the New York Times and Ceci Connolly from the Washington Post:
"They just wanted to tear Gore apart," says a major network correspondent on the trail. (Both refute such characterizations of themselves. "Why would reporters [from] major news organizations confer with the competition on such a fiercely competitive story?" asks Connolly.)
An example of their clearly biased and despicable reporting any and all of which helped cost Gore the election. I don't know if these two are still writing, but they should've been fired on the spot as far as I'm concerned:
Jill Hoffman, a high-school senior in the audience who was helping to film the event, says, "I remember thinking, I really, really like what he has to say." But what Seelye and Connolly zeroed in on was Gore yet again claiming credit for something he didn't do—"discovering" Love Canal (which was, in fact, discovered by the people who lived there). In addition to mischaracterizing his somewhat ambiguous statement, they misquoted him, claiming he said, "I was the one that started it all," instead of "that was the one that started it all."
Around these parts, the only and I mean only reason anyone has ever come up with to justify their support of another candidate over a potential Gore candidacy is that we are in need of a fresh face and that Gore was already given his chance. This article should put that meme to rest. First of all, Gore is a fresh face, one that has been right more than any of the other "fresh" faces with regard to the most pressing issues of our day. Secondly, Gore, as evidenced by this and many other articles, was ruthlessly trashed by the mainstream media. If you're naive enough to believe that wont happen again, to any of the candidates, you're in for a surprise. Luckily this time, we're around to combat the MSM which is why, in addition to many other factors, Gore would fare significantly better and face a more level playing field. Here's another bit about the media and 2000:
As the Daily Howler noted, MSNBC anchor Brian Williams went after Gore's clothes at least five times in one week. "Here is a guy taking off his suits.... This is the casual sweater look—what's going on here?" ... "He would have been in a suit a month ago." ... "He's wearing these polo shirts that don't always look natural on him." Williams's frequent guest Newsweek's Howard Fineman later chimed in: "I covered his last presidential campaign, in 1988. One day he was in the conservative blue suit, the next he was playing lumberjack at the V.F.W. hall in New Hampshire."
Clothes, cleavage, haircuts...we've seen it time and time again. Instead of discussing the issues, which the Democrats have a clear cut advantage with in terms of what the general public believes, the media discusses what the candidates are wearing.
Something Gore never did though was blame the media for his loss. He's too classy to do that:
Indeed, Gore accepts responsibility for not being able to communicate more clearly with the public. He admits, however, that the tendency of the press to twist his words encumbered his ability to speak freely. "I tried not to let it [affect my behavior]," Gore says. "But if you know that day after day the filter is going to be so distorted, inevitably that has an impact on the kinds of messages that you try and force through the filter. Anything that involves subtlety or involves trusting the reporters in their good sense and sense of fairness in interpretation, you're just not going to take a risk with something that could be easily distorted and used against you.... You're reduced to saying, 'Today, here's the message: reduce pollution,' and not necessarily by XYZ out of fear that it will be, well, 'Today he talked about belching cows!'"
Even after the election the media continued to pummel Gore. Upon returning from a two-month hiatus/detox in Europe, the media attacked Al for nothing more than having grown a beard:
After the election the Gores, heartbroken, traveled in Europe for two months. "We were roadkill," admits Tipper. "It took a long time to pick ourselves up from what happened." Gore grew a beard while he was there. After he stepped back onto U.S. soil, the press began knocking him around again for his latest "re-invention." Ceci Connolly, who had become a contributor on Fox News in 2000, said, "Looks like he's ready to go, but go where? Back to Europe with his backpack?" Later, in the Los Angeles Times, Jack Germond wrote, "He should have shed the beard before coming back. Instead, he continues to wear it in what is being interpreted as a signal of another 'new' Gore."
Most repulsive are the attacks of some reporters after Gore spoke out against the Iraq invasion in 2002 - he remains the first major politician to do so:
By September 2002, the country was on the march to war. Against the advice of some confidants, who suggested he might turn out to be on the wrong side of history, Gore spoke out against the invasion—fervently. On September 23, 2002, he articulated all the dangers that have now come to pass. The Washington Post's Michael Kelly wrote about the speech, "It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible." (Kelly was killed on April 3, 2003, in Iraq when his Humvee crashed while trying to evade enemy fire.) Fineman didn't hold back in describing how the "Beltway/Broadway clan" now regarded Gore: "as an annoying and ungracious bore who should have the decency to get lost."
Shame on them. If they haven't already (and I'd bet they haven't) they should issue a long-overdue apology immediately.
And finally, with regard to a 2008 candidacy:
Tipper says he has made zero moves that would suggest a run for the presidency, but adds that if he turned to her one night and said he had to run, she'd get on board, and they'd discuss how to approach it this time around, given what they've learned.
The reporters and opinion-makers have eagerly chewed over the possibility. After all, he's now a star. In step with the new enthusiasm for Gore, Dowd, in a February 2007 column, described him as "a man who was prescient on climate change, the Internet, terrorism, and Iraq," a sentiment echoed by many. The pundits, however, invariably come around to the same question: "But if he ran, would he revert to the 'old Gore'?" Another question—in light of countless recent stories about John Edwards's haircut—might be: Would the media revert to the old media?
Yes, the media would revert to the "old media" (whatever that means), but this time, we have your back Al.