In September, 2002, Gore was the front runner for the 2004 nomination. Gore was over 20 points ahead of his closest (potential) primary rival, and thirty points ahead of all the other potential Dem nominees. But that's when Gore first spoke out against the (then proposed) invasion of Iraq - - while the Congress was still debating whether to authorize, Gore urged them not to authorize it. Several days after the Congress voted to authorize the invasion, Gore was asked by a reporter how he would have voted, if he were still in Congress. Gore said he would have voted against it. (All this when the invasion was overwhelmingly popular.)
Gore had a hell of a lot to loose when he took that position, and it was one of the reasons why he couldn't get funding to run in 2004.
Here's an excerpt from an OpEd Gore wrote in the NY Times in August, 2002 - - before the invasion was proposed, but (again) while Bush's popularity was sky high, and when Gore was far and away the front runner for the 2004 nomination, and only had to get back in the good graces of the DLC-wing of the party to get major fundraisers to back another run:
http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=84OpEd: Broken Promises and Political Deception
by Al Gore
There has always been a debate over the destiny of this nation between those who believed they were entitled to govern because of their station in life, and those who believed that the people were sovereign. That distinction remains as strong as ever today. In every race this November, the question voters must answer is, How do we make sure that political power is used for the benefit of the many, rather than the few?
For well over a year, the Bush administration has used its power in the wrong way. In the election of 2000, I argued that the Bush-Cheney ticket was being bankrolled by "a new generation of special interests, power brokers who would want nothing better than a pliant president who would bend public policy to suit their purposes and profits."
(snip)
Standing up for the people, not the powerful was the right choice in 2000. In fact, it is the ground of the Democratic party's being, our meaning and our mission.
The suggestion from some in our party that we should no longer speak that truth, especially at a time like this, strikes me as bad politics and wrong in principle. This struggle between the people and the powerful was at the heart of every major domestic issue of the 2000 campaign and is still the central dynamic of politics in 2002.
(more... )Another really good example of Gore standing up for what's right, even though keeping quiet (or even endorsing what was wrong) would have benefited him in the short run was the attempted impeachment of Clinton. Most Democrats in Congress (I won't name them, I just suggest everybody look up their favorites) took the opportunity to stand up on the floor of their House and denounce Clinton's actions, and (at least) call for censure. Gore did not - - instead, he continued to stand by Clinton, saying that Clinton was a great President. The worst Gore said about Clinton was "Didn't you ever have a friend who made a mistake?"
If Gore had joined the chorus condemning Clinton, he would have won over the press (who instead worked to destroy his 2000 campaign). If Gore had worked behind the scenes to ensure Clinton was impeached, Gore would have been a sitting President in 2000, which would have made him almost impossible to beat. He would have been able to run for two more terms.
IMNSHO, the reason that a lot of people think that Gore has changed, or is suddenly freer to act on principle, is because most folks got their news about Gore through the MSM prior to 2002. They saw Gore in five second sound bytes on the TV news, stripped of their context - - and usually the least important or interesting 5 seconds were selected by the MSM to show. Now folks read or watch his speeches in their entirety through the Internet, and they are impressed with Gore's many strengths as a speaker (and leader): his vision, his logic, his persuasiveness, even his prose style.
Another reason that many folks think Gore has changed is because the times have changed. Prior to Smirk's installation, Gore gave excellent speeches on any number of subjects, he had the same goofy, self-depreciating sense of humor, and he never hesitated to stick to his own principles, no matter what the party wanted him to do. But his speeches were not as important, or timeless as they are now - - just as Lincoln's speeches before the Civil War were good, but the Gettysburg Address is classic; and just like Jefferson's writings before 1776 were good, but the Declaration of Independence is timeless.