I am SO PISSED at Al Gore

WHERE was this Al Gore in 2000?? :grr: This fire-and-brimstone Southern preacher Al Gore, combined with the refined, intellectual Al Gore would have so completely and convincingly kicked W's sorry sock-puppet ass...even IF there were any need for a *recount* (which I highly doubt), 10 Supreme Courts couldn't have gotten away with handing it to the shrub.

Perhaps this is a manifestation of the righteous indignation the duly elected, but not selected, President of the United States feels. Perhaps THIS Al Gore didn't exist pre-2000. But I highly doubt it. It's too much of an honest and sincere expression of outrage and emotion to have only shown itself in the very recent past.

It just makes me FURIOUS...:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

eom

Everyone had a job, the stock market was kicking ass, we had a record budget SURPLUS, and most of the world loved us. If Gore was acting like this he would have been painted as "unstable"

I'll grant you that...but I, who is not by any stretch of the imagination a *politician*, knew then that if the shrub was elected things were gonna go straight to hell but fast. I'm not suggesting he should've ranted in the same fashion as he is now, but the FIRE should have been there. HE had to know as least as much as I did, fer chrissake...:eyes:

n/t

Give him some slack though. In hindsight, he like many of us, believed that we were dealing with conservative politicians, who still believed the Constitution counted. Little did most of us know that these people were nothing better than organized crime gangsters to whom the ends justifies the means.

Because to win, one must be NICE. Not angry, not mean. It's a mild society now. BORING!!

I'll give one good example. And people laugh at me when I say this. There is no hot hotsauce on the shelves of your regular market anymore. Just what the fuck is "mild hotsauce" supposed to be? Good lord!

No, I know people who said they had heard Al Gore give fiery speeches. We discussed this during the election of 2000. It was obvious he was taming down his behavior.

He's too good for politics. I'm just saying that. I would really like to think that politics could be inspiring. Why just be the lowest common denominator. If not, then what the fuck do we need them for?

The DLC saw the rise of Reagan as a serious threat to the Democratic party. His popularity and capture of the so called Reagan Democrats posed a threat to the party that many thought would be its doom. Their response to this was a tactical one rather than an idealogical one. They decided to target the numbers in order to win elections if not change minds.

To this end they started targeting the center votes. The undecideds. They considered the nonvoters unreachable so they invested little time in them. But the undecided centerists were pliable and voted. So they recommended to candidates that they lower their idealogical arguments and instead appeal to the centerists. Then once in office they could set about their agendas.

The problems with this tactic are numerous. In short order it basically handed the battle field to the right. Since the candidates were trying to chase after voters instead of enticing them to come to their side they no longer championed big ideas. They wooed ideas similar to the rights platform in an attempt to undermine their arguments. But this simply enabled the right to move even further to the right.

The second and more persistant problem is it created a perception in the publics eye that Democrats were two faced. The very idea of win first then change things smacked of dishonesty. Everyone could see it was their tactic. Democrats are now known for being indecisive and flip floppy. They are untrusted because they do not seem to stand up for the things they campaign on.

This drift to the right further endangered the party because it assumed the left had no place to go. This disenfranchisement has left a very bad taste for many on the left. Most bearly tolerate it simply to keep the right out of power. Many have fled the party and joined progressive or green groups. Their distaste for the Democrats is now firmly entrenched and getting them back may be problematic.

It is best in the long term to run on the ideals you stand for. If you do not you hand far too much to the opposition. By following polls and number we have lost our fire. There is no passion in chasing the center. You need fire to light the way for people to follow.

couldn't have said it better myself. What good is simply "keeping the right out of power" if the DNC and the party as a whole keeps moving to the right?

For some of us, "keeping the right out of power" means keeping both Repugs AND most Democrats out of power. Sad, but true.

How long will true progressives keep letting the DNC bank on their votes? As long as there are Republicans? Ah, but what happens the day you can tell a Democrat from a Republican? That day will be soon I think.

One big error is that liberals are never going away. They are here, and are far more legitimate than conservative, when it comes to the real world. So catering to the right was a disaster. The minute they did that, they lost me.

Everything you said is correct. I wish I had the recollection you do. I was too busy medicating myself to forget the fucking mess.

... exactly who it was that pushed him to put on that farcical front in the debates - because whoever that is cost him the decisive victory.

RC

he's looking more fiery than Kerry... no offense to Kerry, but it's sad when Al Gore is more outspoken than you. ;)

of DLC advisors these days.

i agree completely ... i give him very little of my attention now -- he had his chance to speak out back in 2000 and he caved.

he was/is absolutely complicit in the coup that put that lying cokehead in the white house ... i know many DUers love him, but i have very little respect for him.

. . . notice I didn't say "right", goddess forbid! Al Gore had too many handlers and the decision to snub Clinton did him in. But, thankfully, the Big Dog is hittin' the trail this time!

I saw Gore in 2000, loved him, voted for him. But then I don't get a lot of info from corporate media.
Sounds like you guys have your own regrets to reconcile.

not everyone had the opportunity to see him in person...I would've LOVED to, I hear from several people who did that he was fantastic. That's part of the problem, however...IN PERSON (where a small fraction of the country had the chance to see him) he was amazing. IN THE MEDIA, where the greatest number of people could've been affected by his presence, he was completely cardboard. WHY??! :grr: :(

I think you bought into the media's portrayal of Al Gore as cardboard and stiff. I am sorry about that, but I think it's time you realized it and stopped blaming Gore because you saw him only through the media's filter, and missed really seeing him.
But at least you're seeing him now!

I remember one appearance he made on Letterman, he was HYSTERICAL! :D I was sooo happy too because I thought "Surely this will shut a lot of those 'Al Gore is such a robot' people up'"...but alas, it was not meant to be.

I see what you're saying; what I'm saying is it would've been nice if EVERYONE could've *seen* him as we did. Maybe my anger at him personally is a bit misdirected, but I don't think so... No one FORCED him to adopt the android style. It's just sad...:(

thanks to bush* and it ain't over til it's over.

to be outraged about during his campaign for 2000, except perhaps for the way he was treated by the press, but he would have come across as a crybaby for complaining about that.

HE did WIN...............He WON...............and they stole it away...........

My theory is that the election experience of 2000 woke him up to the fact that the Bush group are ruthless thugs. Before then, he was just a little naive to that, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to pull the wool over his eyes as they did during the campaign. And Lord, he really was terrible in the debates. It was is if he was in some sort of trance. The bad advice of Donna Brazil and Terry McCauliff didn't help any either.

And that could probably have something to do with it, don't you think?


People constantly dissing Al Gore are making me tired.

I went blue in the face trying to defend him to people, who kept insisting he was "boring." I always kind of hoped the Clinton presidency would be a lead in to a Gore presidency.

cared less about the facts, only I knew it would jeopardize Gore's election, and ironically it has changed the world to the current nightmare.

My husband said I must be in the miniority that liked Gore more than Clinton.

I don't know that he could have done back in December 2000, I don't think a fiery speech would have have changed the mind of the SCOTUS. It was just a wierd, unprecedented time. I wanted him to do more, but honestly I don't know if it wouldn't have just backfired. Too bad we didn't have Gore for eight years instead of Clinton, maybe it would be a different world today. Looking back is always easier.

Actually, I was FINE that Al Gore made the decision he did, #1) He was TOO GOOD for y'all at that time and #2) the Mighty Wurlitzer would have made it absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for him to accomplish a thing ESPECIALLY as so many had NOT grokked it yet. Anger AT Al Gore is INAPPROPRIATE.

Y'all keep looking for some WHITE KNIGHT to swoop down and save your sedentary, broad, jenky asses... :eyes: I, for one, support the decisions of an intelligent, thoughtful well-spoken man. What he did then is moot. What he does NOW is all that matters. He just opened a can of WHOOP-ASS. I do hope enough Americans are able to digest the information he's given and support the TRUTH he has so eloquently spoken.

(ROTFLMAO...you are killing me, though :hi: )

the present is what's most important.

This morning I got a chance to watch Al's whole speech on cspan then today Kerry's the contrast was astonishing.

Hearing Al speak mad me want to weep for what we had lost in the last 3 years. What could have been had we gotten Al instead of the god damned shrub!

I am positive we would be looking at a lot more clean or reusable energy. I doubt we would be in Iraq osama would probably be captured by now. Instead of a defacit we would have a surplus or maybe even health care! God it makes me depressed just thinking of the possibilites.

Instead we will spend years repairing the damage this bastard son of a president we have now has done :grr:


I wanted Al as my president I still do and his speech yesterday showed me again why.

I dont want Kerry as my president. I have never liked the man his behavior during the IWR vote was the begining of my dislike for him it hasnt gotten much better from there.

I will vote for the putz cause bush is just that bad but he does nothing for me. I dont trust him and judging by his speech today I will sleep through his administration.

All was inspiring kerry while putting forth a basic plan I can agree with never made me feel for his leadership.

So kerry gets a vote from me cause bush sucks nuts If al got in the race Kerry and bush would both be history.

when he conceded in mid December 2000.

My first reaction to that speech was, "If he talked like that for the previous year he would have won by a mile."

Gore is capable of being a talented politician. During that campaign, all the time that he had a chance to win, he never used those talents.

It was infuriating.

After all, "No good deed goes unpunished"

the SCOTUS might have been "afraid" to hand it to Jr...

I think he took a cue from the advisors he had.. They probably thought that being "gentlemanly" would resonate with the public..

I think everyone has seen the repubes for what they are.. streetfighters in buttondown collars..They play dirty..they play for keeps, and they take no prisoners (or if they do, they torture them)..

Gore (of today) would stand up to the media lies, and the many lies of GWB, but back then, I think he still trusted the system..:(

...strategy against the advice of his advisors. Clinton was the one who wanted him to fight the hardest, but he wouldn't consult Clinton. Clinton had to try to get word to people around Gore, and they had to filter it up to Gore.

Apparently Gore ran his campaign according to what he thought the NYT editorial board had to say about him, much to the frustration of his advisors (and Clinton on the sidelines).

else. Except for the black caucus, those with power simply dried up like prunes and became mute.

I shall never understand it.

I have not read one single thing that would explain this, except perhaps some from Paul Krugman inhis book. He says that he can say what he says because he is not a part of the Washington beltway. He has the freedom to speak his piece because he has never been a part of that clique.


So, perhaps there is something about the Washington beltway regulars that actually crimps them.

Gore has been out of that melieu for while now. I think he may have had an epiphany. I loved the sweet look in his eyes when he referred to his wife and his daughter and thanked them for being there. Tipper is a lucky lucky woman.

is that why there was hardly a peep from anyone, except the black caucus? perhaps the CBC members are used to being outsiders :shrug:

For eight years he sat in the VPs house insulated from the world which may, in part, explain why only two sitting Vice Presidents have ever been elected President. Poppy Bush, one of those two, had his biggest gaff of the '88 election when he marvelled over barcode scanners which he saw for the first time but which was years old news for the rest of us. Not Poppy Bush's fault. Just a side effect of being Vice President.

When he said these people are a THREAT to our national security, he was not being humorous. He is calling for their resignation because between now and the election they could cause irrepreable harm to this country. They've already put us in the toilet. He was expressing this well founded outrage.

He could've won!

When he said these people are a THREAT to our national security, he was not being humorous. He is calling for their resignation because between now and the election they could cause irrepreable harm to this country. They've already put us in the toilet. He was expressing this well founded outrage.

We all get to grow and evolve, Gore included! Better late than never, I like the new "Rebel Gore"!

And to the naysayers, doesn't the phrase "Better late than never" now seem pretentious?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

like the idiot & company :hurts:

alert, anyone?

the next time you decide to troll DU, you do not post such garbage on a moderator's thread.


:hi:

saw it shortly after it went up :7

the shit you belched out in another post. Could you at least have the decency to not BORE us if you're going to come in here with your pro-fascist agenda?

as of 5:27 CDT.

But, tell me this, who sounds sane to you? Shrubito, freeper lurker? Ooooo, I gotta go wash.

known as Jo-mentum.

I watched that sppech, and I'm thinking, Al, where the hell were you during the 2000 campaign? It was kind of bizarre.

Attempting to add his term onto 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton.

As a high-ranking public office holder, it would have been extremely difficult for Gore to show off his fiery, impassioned side -- even today, there is some criticism (from so-called liberals, yet!) that he was "over the top" yesterday.

**Nobody** could have anticipated what happened in 2000 -- we were all in uncharted waters with that virtual dead-heat election.

Gore attempted taking the high road, ultimately respecting the law of the land as laid down by the Supreme Court, for better or worse. Should he be taken to task for that? He was trying to do the right thing for his country, and not allow it to be torn apart. He had no more legal options.

There was so little going on in the world and our country in 2000 compared to now. I remember watching the debate thinking Bush is trying to move so far to the left and Al Gore so far to the right it seemed like bush would say something and Al would agree with it. Then Al would say something and Bush would agree. So basically there was nothing to be mad about in 2000.

A suggestion:

Channel your anger to the real culprits that threatened and harassed Al Gore and his family.

Channel your anger towards the Supreme Court, which shot the finger at America and the Constitution by exploiting their position as Justices and abusing their power so they could choose our president.

Channel your anger towards Florida election officials who, as Gore played dutifully by the rules (which essentially remains a silent fact in our media), threw land mines in the voting process and blocked every opportunity for a fair recount.

Blame fair-weathered, milque toast Joe Lieberman, who left Al Gore high and dry, at one of the most important moment of Gores life, after Al Gore had actually made Joe Lieberman a somebody and chose him as a nominee.

Blame the Republican hired Tom Delay thugs who went to Florida specifically to raise as much unjustified hell as possible and disrupt Democracy at any cost.

Dont be one who blames the victim.

Look at the situation realistically and honestly. I know your angry. It doesnt help by kicking the one injured.

You think this has been a cake walk for Al Gore?

No doubt he has dreamed of being president, and to witness his his victory slip from his hands, while essentially no other Democratic leaders came to his side to fight for the presidency and DO THEIR JOB to defend our country and Democracy?

DEMOCRATS NEED TO QUIT BEATING EACH OTHER UP WHILE WE ARE DOWN.

Hell, Ive never seen anything so shameful and actually cowardly in my life. Its easy to throw stones at individuals sinking in quick sand.

Aim at the right target for a change.

and he was plenty passionate and outspoken in 2000. People just forget or they weren't listening. There are great speeches of his posted on the AlGORE web sites.

When the supreme court handed down their decision 12/12/00 there was a impromptu demonstration here in Seattle - but only about 100 people showed up. Then there was a demonstration scheduled in SF for the inauguration - I think I read about it on DU - plenty of notice, but probably less than 500 people were there.
It took bush* a couple of years to wake more people up. So maybe he was chosen by God after all, to snap us all out of our media-soaked stupors.

Edited to add: thank you Cheswick for all the good posts you do. You're relentless!

Anyone that didn't vote for Gore only has themselves to blame. He was always this good, people just had their minds made up that he wasn't liberal enough for their refined tastes. Look where that got us.

totally fucked up his campaign.

http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=6543

Might make for a good thread again ;)

"He seems quite willing to play the populist card even if it distorts the record of corporations, fosters antagonism between company leadership and workers and encourages the very stereotyping that, on other fronts, the Democratic Party claims to be against.":
http://www.pamanufacturers.org/bulletins/press/press_release_9_21_00.html

"Gore is wrong. His angry populism helped cost him the 2000 election. He doesn't understand this because he can't see the differences between Clinton's populism and his own. He's still arguing about it because he thinks fighting is noble. And he's doing it in such a pious way, quoting himself and selectively quoting others, because, as the 2000 presidential debates demonstrated, his driving imperative is to prove that he's right and his opponents are wrong. Any one of these flaws would be sufficient to justify denying him the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination."
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2069005



He tried, but even people in his own party criticized him for being strident and frightening away potential supporters. So he toned it down.

Slate blamed Gore for being too emotional. As someone mentioned earlier, anytime a Democrat gets passionate it's spun as a bad thing. (BTW, I suspect that Gore wrote this week's speech himself -- he does this when something really matters to him.) The Gore we saw this week has always been part of him, only he was made to suppress it. I don't feel I can make the call on whether that was the "right" or "wrong" thing to do, particularly since we didn't have the gift of hindsight back then. My guess is that Gore DID have an idea of how bad things might get -- he's always been able to see around corners and further ahead than most people, plus he actually listened to those security briefings -- but with millions of Americans dismissing him as an uptight obsessive (and later, a "sore loser"), I don't know what he could have done.

it is almost in the same league as "liberal".

Both should be avoided if one wants to become president, it seems.

Does anyone but me see irony in that, or am I just too emotional?

Is Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton ,John Kerry and many other of our congressional representatives, suitably divested of the "emotionalism" because they voted, with all sober, non hysterical reason and logic, to give Bush a blank check to invade and slaughter tens of thousands of innocent people?

Is Lincoln Chafee--the only Republican in the Senate who voted against the war, too emotional I wonder.

Leaders do best when they are believable human beings. A believable human being and a potential leader, is balanced in approach between emotions and reason. Sometimes it takes both working in tandem to come to conclusions that work the best.

When HE gets "too emotional" (practically sobbing when he announced "I'm a loving guy") his supporters hold it up as a sign of his tremendous compassion, religious devotion, and patriotism. (Of course.)

Thanks for sharing.

Where was this Al Gore in 2000?

Personally, I chalk it up to a Paul of Tarsus moment somewhere between then and now...

trying to distance himself from Clinton.