I hate to play Monday Morning Quarterback but WTF was going through Gore's

[nickshepDEM]

...mind when he picked Lieberman for VP back in 2000? I was thinking about this today, and I could not think of a single positive that Lieberman brought to the ticket. He could have picked Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), which would have swung the election. Sen. Bob Graham (FL), another great pick that would have swung the election. I know hindsights 20/20, but WTF?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. The Jewish vote?

Bob Graham WOULD have brought in Florida. He is well thought of by both parties, for the most part.

[barb162]

135. I suspect Gore had the Jewish vote locked up before Lieberman

got in the picture (a guess)

[drummo]

139. In a close election a few hundred voters can make all the difference

[dansolo]

184. Lieberman lost more votes than he gained

For every voter that Lieberman got for Gore, I'd be willing to bet that he lost 10. The whole Jewish voter thing is a myth. I can't imagine that there were many people who liked Joe Lieberman who wouldn't have already been voting for Gore.

[drummo]

192. Prove it.

After Gore picked Joe he jumped in the polls and never looked back. That certainly does not show that Gore lost more voters with Joe than he won. Just saying that "for every voter that Lieberman got for Gore, I'd be willing to bet that he lost 10." will not prove anything.
It's an opinion not a fact.
And that opinion is not supported by actual data.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/07/cnn.poll/index.html

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 7 2000
Lieberman's Criticism of Bill Clinton
More favorable 26%
Less favorable 21%

26 is more in my world than 21.


And

Registered Voters' Choice for President
Before selection Joe
Aug. 4-5
Gore 38%
After selection Joe
August 7
Gore 46%

Also:

"But four times as many voters say that Lieberman makes them more likely to vote Democratic than who say he makes them less likely -- a much higher ratio than Cheney received."

And Gore won a bigger share of the Jewish vote than Kerry and a bigger share than Clinton in 1996. Accident?

[Carolab]

2. He had bad advisors. n/t

[drummo]

36. No, Joe was an early pick by Gore. Back during the impeachment he

already considered picking Joe in case Clinton would be removed from office.
Read Roger Simon's Divived we Stand

[DURHAM D]

3. You are pretending that the number of votes actuallly matters ?

Oh wait - Jimmy Carter said last week that Gore won.

[dsc]

4. Lieberman probably won him Florida

He also likely helped in PA and MI among the heavy Jewish populations of those states.

[wakeme2008]

22. Bob Graham would have got him tons more Florida

votes.

Lieberman was not serious about the 2000 election, part of the time he was up in his state running for the Senate.

[dsc]

26. That was a problem

and yes Graham would have clinched Florida but done nothing to help anywhere else. Lieberman was a first (first Jewish VP candidate) and that gave him a charisma thing which he otherwise lacked. I know that the first gay VP who is on a Democratic ticket would lead me to vote if I had to walk naked upon broken glass to do so. I would imagine more than a few Jews felt similarly about Lieberman.

[Donna Zen]

62. The question remains

What states did Lieberman bring? CT? NY? The states that Lieberman influenced were already in the "D" column.

[drummo]

66. Why do you think that Gore picked Joe because he "would bring a state"?

He picked him because he had to speparate himself from Clinton's immorality and lies. That was necessary nationwide not just in one state.

Until people perceived Gore as too close to Clinton he didn't have a damn chance to get ahead of Bush in the polls.
After he separated himself from Clinton 's questionable character by picking Joe, kissing his wife, declaring that he was his own man and by mentioning Clinton only once in his convention speech all of a sudden he jumped 8% in the polls and was no longer the underdog in the race.

[Donna Zen]

124. Do I think that? I was replying to someone

...who did/does think that. The previous post speculates about Jomentum's effect on winning Florida. I agree with you that Gore's people thought he needed to distance himself from the blue-dress.

Actually, a few days ago, I was looking at some polling data from that time. Clinton's numbers remained high because of the economy, but there was underlying data that showed that "morally" people didn't like it. And, the republicans had decided to run on "family values" because they couldn't attack the economy.

[drummo]

127. Not Gore's people. Gore himself. Do you think he didn't have polls

in those red states? Clinton was down in the toilet over there even if he had 50% job approval his personal approval was never above 40% in red states after the whole Monica business.

Clinton's numbers remained high because of the economy, but there was underlying data that showed that "morally" people didn't like it. And, the republicans had decided to run on "family values" because they couldn't attack the economy.

I'm glad someone finally gets it.
Dems usually forget about the personal approval ratings they only mention the job approval -- which was not relevant since Gore couldn't get credit for the job someone else did.

[karynnj]

67. Except their are few Jews who don't already vote Democratic

Jews are about 2% of the population, they have a very high voter participation rate but they always are heavilly Democratic. I thing the numbers I've seen are that 79% of Jews voted for Gore/Lieberman, while (even with all the neo-con nonsense) 75% voted for Kerry.

[drummo]

73. 4% is a lot when it's a close election.

[karynnj]

79. It's not 4% it's 4% of 2%

which is .08% and some of that difference was due to the war on terror stuff so the difference in 2000 might have been less. Much of that would be in NY, NJ, IL, and other Democratic areas. Florida is possibly the only place where it helped. I am Jewish - I know many people were excited, but I didn't really see more actively involved.

I really see no other state he helped - and I really do thing his and Cheney's debate did what I would have thought impossible - it humanized Dick Cheney. Edwards did better. Kerry would likely have blown him away and possibly caused him to lose his temper, while Kerry simply sounded reasonable. The question is how many states were close enough for this to have tilted the election - all they needed was NH.

[drummo]

82. Which means how many people? Sure more than 537, right?

Of course it was Florida. Nobody said it was elsewhere.

Joe's effect was important in another way. Gore managed to get rid of the Clinton's lapdog image, without which he couldn't have jumped in the polls.

Noone cares about veep debates. They never made any difference in any election. And Cheney does not lose his temper easily.

And no, they would have needed NH and every other state that Gore won.
But there is no guarantee that Gore would have won NM and Iowa with Kerry on the ticket. He lost both states in 2004. NM and Iowa are not exactly the places where Mass liberals are popular.

But again, there's no evidence that Gore would have won even NH with Kerry since Nader would have been there anyway and without him Gore would have won NH, just like Kerry won it by a small margin when Nader was a non-factor.

[karynnj]

211. That was the number Gore was DOWN

If he WON by that number you might have a point

[drummo]

212. No, because we know that Gore had many more voters

than the number of certified votes. The 537 was the certified difference. But Gore convinced more voters to get out and vote for him than Bush did. And in that the difference was much more than 537.
Unless you think that Jews really wanted to vote for Buchanan.

And Gore's veep pick obviously had nothing to do with the butterfly ballot which ultimately determined that many people's vote, who wanted to vote for Gore (i.e. was convinved partly because or because he picked Lieberman), were not certitied.

[TheFarseer]

85. And how many muslim voters did it scare off?

Of course if I was a muslim now, I'd be scared sh*tless that GW was going to haul me off to the gulag, but no one knew he'd declare war on the muslim world in 2000.

[drummo]

88. Before 2004 Muslims voted for Reps overwhelmingly anyway

I can't tell you exactly how many Muslims went for Bush solely because Joementum was on the the Dem ticket but I can tell you that Bush pandered very agressively to the Muslim community in 2000. Read more about that in House of Bush, House of Saud.

[Gyre]

28. Yeah, that worked out well.

Joe's a wanker.

[drummo]

37. Actually it did. I don't think Gore would have won without

Lieberman. He had to separate himself from Clinton's immorality, because people are so damn stupid they think you are guilty just because you are linked to the really guilty.

I actually read in a report about a voter who said 'I know that I shouldn't blame Gore for Clinton's lies but I just can't help it.

How stupid is that?

As Churchill said the best argument against Democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

[Vickers]

105. I live in South Florida, and many folks I know voted for Nader

because Gore picked Lieberman.

Course they are slapping themselves now.

[drummo]

116. How many?

[Vickers]

122. Well, 7 that I can think of.

These are people that I am friends with, that would have voted for Gore otherwise. Two are Jewish!

:shrug:

I reckon I have heard at least 15 or so other folks (non-friend colleagues) who at the time expressed considerable dismay at Gore's choice, but I don't know how they voted (they indicated they would NOT vot for Gore, in spite of their seeming progressive nature, so I'm presuming Nader...I can't imagine them going for Bush).

Anyway...WTF pal, don't believe me? Sorry if it fucks up any personal theories you have, but hey. :eyes:

[drummo]

125. I believe you but 7 wouldn't have made a difference.

And if there was 10 in Palm Beach (those who actually did not vote for Buchanan but that obviously couldn't be calculated into the picture at the time of the selection anyway) who voted for Gore because of Lieberman then the decision makes sense all of sudden.

As I said earlier it's not the question whether you lose voters with a particular decision but whether you lose more than you win.


By they way your friends are not quite normal if they voted for Nader just because Joe was on the ticket but this country is full of stupid voters. I hope they are not very satisfied.

Remember the problem is never with those few hundred elected idiots in Washigton. The problem is with the tens of millions of idiots outside of Washington.

[Vickers]

191. I'm only a small piece of the Florida pie, buddy

If *I* personally know 7 people who were upset enough with Gore's pick of Joe to look elsewhere, then you could extrapolate that out (unscientific, true, but hey) and the numbers could get quite impressive.

It wasn't so much a dislike of Joe as it was a questioning of Gore's judgement...to some it seemed like pandering to certain segments, to others it seemed like same-old same-old, to others it seemed like "who the fuck is Lieberman?", etc.

Lemme ask you this: how many people do you think believe that Gore's pick of Joe was a FANTASTIC decision?

[drummo]

193. And you think that that "small piece of the Florida pie"

is somehow representavive of the entire state?

I could pick a small piece of the Florida pie in the panhandle and conclude that no people wanted to vote for Gore.

If *I* personally know 7 people who were upset enough with Gore's pick of Joe to look elsewhere, then you could extrapolate that out (unscientific, true, but hey) and the numbers could get quite impressive.

I cannot extrapolate because it would be a statistical fraud.
I don't know your friends bot probably they share the same ideology as your do. But that ideology is not dominant in either Florida or natiowide. (Liberals are in the minority)
Now of course you can say that all of those 7 people were independent or even conservative but how could anyone confirm that?

It wasn't so much a dislike of Joe as it was a questioning of Gore's judgement...to some it seemed like pandering to certain segments, to others it seemed like same-old same-old, to others it seemed like "who the fuck is Lieberman?", etc.

Yes and for others it seemed like Joe killed Jesus.

Of course people think all kind of things. That's why you always lose voters with every decision. They will think they can read the candidate's mind and fell in love in their own theory and start treating it as fact. That's always the case no matter what your do.

But that's why I said the only thing that matters is whether you lose more voters than you win. And the data shows Gore won more voters with Joe than he lost, including in Florida. That's the only thing that matters in elections not what your friends fantasied about Gore's thinking.

[Vickers]

195. "it would be a statistical fraud"

then later:

"the data shows Gore won more voters with Joe than he lost"

:rofl:

If they used a sampling of voters to determine this, they are "fraudulent" :eyes: just like me, in that they had to extrapolate at some point (unless they asked every American voter, and I know I wasn't asked).

Anywho, I agree to disagree. If you like Joe, hey, groovy man. I think he was the wrong decision (but I still voted for Gore). I wish Kerry would have picked Clark, but I voted for Kerry anyway.

I try to look at the big picture, something I wish that my "friends (that) are not quite normal" would do.

[drummo]

197. What's so funny about that? And where is the supposed contradiction?

I said that your suggested method that just one has to look at those 7 people in a small part of Florida and conlcude that Gore lost more voters because of Lieberman than he won would be statistical fraud.

For one thing the sample is probably homogeneous (liberals) and you did not specify how big that "small part of the Florida pie" is, actually. So based on your story one cannot determine how most voters reacted to Joe in the entire state, let alone nationwide.
Just try to tell your 7-people story to a professional pollster he will laugh you out of the room.

But there is data (scientific poll not statistical fraud )which shows that at least nationwide more people liked Gore's pick than disliked, and more people had favorable opinion about Joe because of his Clinton criticism than unfavorable and that Gore gained in the polls after picking Joe.

Those polls did not use 7 (probaly liberal) people within an undetermined community. If you want to know more about the method used to make those polls call the pollster or go to their website.

You can have your doubts about scientific polls but doubt is not good enough. You have to prove that they are not accurate.

I guess you pay attention to polls. And you use them to determine how most people react to various things.
You did not explain why in this particular case these polls should be dismissed as innacurate while your 7 people "poll" should be considered representative of the electorate as a whole.
And if they are accurate how can you still claim that Gore surely lost more voters with Joe than he won? What's the evidence for that? The opinion of those 7 people? Not representative, sorry.

I don't like Joe, he betrayed Gore big time, but I cannot think that Gore lost more voters because of him than he won since the data available does not prove that.
But I'm sure you deny the accuracy of those polls because you dislike Joe. Which is not particularly logical.

[Vickers]

200. Are you fucking kidding me? Of course they are liberals, that is

what we were DISCUSSING, loss of (presumably) liberal voters because Gore picked Joe. And of course my statistical pool is not as accurate as a "scientific" :eyes: poll, but when taken as a percentage of total voters it's a wash.

I don't dislike Joe, but nice strawman argument there, pal!

I provided admittedly anecdotal evidence which you rebut with "professional pollster" :eyes: bullshit...if you feel that he GAINED Democratic voters with his selection of Joe, I feel that you are delusional.

Seriously, do you think that picking Joe was INSPIRED? Do you think that it showed VISION?

Because if you don't inspire people, and don't provide them with something to look forward to, them votes are hard to come by.

[drummo]

203. No. What we were discussing is whether picking Joe made

sense in terms of winning the election.

If Gore lost fewer voters because of Joe than he won then selecting him made sense. That was the subject.

And of course my statistical pool is not as accurate as a "scientific" :eyes: poll, but when taken as a percentage of total voters it's a wash.

No. It is not just that it is not as accurate. It is not accurate at all. Which means that it doesn't prove that Gore lost more votes because of Joe than he won.
And what do you want to take as "as a percentage of total voters ", exactly?

I don't dislike Joe, but nice strawman argument there, pal!

Then explain why you keep suggesting this falsehood that Joe cost Gore the election?

I provided admittedly anecdotal evidence which you rebut with "professional pollster" :eyes: bullshit...if you feel that he GAINED Democratic voters with his selection of Joe, I feel that you are delusional.

Yeah man Bush also had a bunch of anecdotal evidence that Saddam had a nuke programa and he didn't care much about scientific evidence which shows he had nothing. Indeed your way of analysing reality is the best way.

I never said that Gore gained Democratic voters with his selection of Joe. Guess what? Not only Democrats vote in an election.
Although it's quite possible that conservative Democrats (yes they exist) reacted positively to Joe, I was talkign about the electorate as a whole not just Democrats.
again: you cannot win a national election by just getting the votes of your party member. You need indies and some from the opposite party.
Your "anectotical evidence" is not evidence since it only talks about hoew 7 liberals reacted.

Seriously, do you think that picking Joe was INSPIRED? Do you think that it showed VISION?


What the fuck does a veep choice have to do with vision or inspiration? Gore had his own vision and he was running for prez not Joe.
You pick a veep because you think he would help you win the election and would help you govern and would make a good president.
In 2000 Joe was not as horrible as he is today. For one thing he did not want to invade Iraq which was the single biggest factor in Gore's
decision to endorse Dean and screw Joe in the primaries. He deserved it.

But sure Gore was glad to do something historic and pick the first Jewish vice presidential candidate.

[Vickers]

205. OK, lemme ask you this: do you feel picking Joe gained RW votes?

:shrug:

You say it's not the issue that Joe didn't gain liberal votes, so where do you feel he gained these "statistical" votes?

"But sure Gore was glad to do something historic and pick the first Jewish vice presidential candidate."

Lotta good it did, huh? :rofl: Maybe we'll pick the first Santeria VP candidate next! :eyes:

[drummo]

207. He gained among "moral voters" who were conservative Democrats

indies and Republicans. Don't forget that Gore won 8% of Rep vote and 45 % of indies.

Rove asked a bunch of focus groups after the convention to figure out
where the new Gore voters came from. He found that they were people who cared about moral values and character. So Rove wanted to re-link Gore to Clinton by running a bunch of "scandal ads" and one in which Gore says Clinton will be remembered in the history books as one of our greatest president.

Lotta good it did, huh? :rofl: Maybe we'll pick the first Santeria VP candidate next! :eyes:

Yes it did a lot of good. Gore won the election.
And he couldn't have won it had he not distanced himself from Clinton.
Joe served that goal pretty well.

Now you can laugh at your ignorance. Because apparently you don't care about the actual election result or scientific polls. Your speculations sure are much more superior than polls and they describe what most voters were thinking in 2000 with astonishing precisity. :sarcasm:

[Vickers]

208. My ignorance?

Later, dude!

*ignore*

[drummo]

210. Yes, your ignorance.

Or should I believe, based on what you said, that you actually know what most voters cared about in 2000? Or that you know that most voters wanted to end the Clinton-era -- regardless of the good economy?

Did you ever studied the exit polls which actually tell something about what voters were thinking?
Or the 2000 Clinton-Bush polls which showed Clinton losing to Bush?
Or how much Gore gained in the polls after he distanced himself from Clinton?

What do you know other than your own speculation?

[YDogg]

5. Jeanne-mentum? Bob-mentum? Heh!

Joe-mentum, baaayyybeee!

[onehandle]

6. How five years ago of you. nt

[nickshepDEM]

8. How can you not think about what could have been?

Especially with what we're going through now.

[Pirate Smile]

7. He was trying to negate the Clinton/Lewinski scandal because

Joe had come out strongly against what Bill did. It was to distance himself from that scandal - at least that was the reasoning I heard at the time.

[nickshepDEM]

9. Huh... I guess that makes sense.

[Tamyrlin79]

14. Despite the fact that it was only a "Scandal" for 30%

of the public. Clinton's approval numbers during impeachment were around 70%.

By picking Lieberman, he was trying to win over voters that he absolutely would never get so long as there was a Republican in the race. Which pretty much equals never. He should have picked someone who would have gotten the independents and fence-sitters.

[drummo]

38. Yeah job approval. But look at his personal approval numbers in 2000

Below 40%. Even in Arkansas.

The job numbers were about the economy. The personal numbers were about Clinton himself. In 2000 the later mattered because Gore didn't get credit for the job Clinton did. (Why should he have?) But stupid people associated him with Clinton the person and every damn lie he ever told us.

[karynnj]

68. The combination of Tipper and Lieberman's

crusades may have shifted some voters to Nader.

[drummo]

72. As for Tipper, that's a non issue. Obviously Gore wouldn't have

divorced just to make some liberals happy who otherwise I think were a bunch of whiny idiots. Who cares about CD labels when the stakes are high? I wonder whether those liberals are now happy to have Bush with his Iraq mess in the White House. Sure all those dead troops in Iraq would be still alive if warning labels wouldn't exist on CDs with obscene songs.

Lieberman alienated some liberals. No question about that. And I'm sure Gore anticipated that. But he won more non-liberal voters for Gore, as polls showed at the time.

With every decision during the campaign you both win and lose voters. The question is the balance. If you win more than you lose it's a good decision. And nothing proves that by picking Lieberman Gore lost more voters than he won. He got a huge bounce after the convention and in Sept he, with Joe on his ticket, was leading Bush by 8-10%.

[karynnj]

165. Nobody would ask him to divorce the woman he clearly loves

(nor would I appreciate people suggesting that)
The point was that because Liberman emphasized his similar activities and both were given such prominance, it did have an impact.

I do understand that this was intentional and designed to counter the Clinton effect. It may well have been the right thing to do - but Bush did get the majority of people for whom this was an important issue.

My point was that Clinton's sexual problems were Clinton's, possibly if Gore simply said as much (which I think he did) and highlighted his obviously succesful, faithful marriage, but said that was not the issue and demanded people consider the real issues it might have been better. Perhaps with a surrogate obliquely mentioning Bush's drinking problems whenever Bush talked about values. (not in a detailed way, but saying, "You talk about bringing dignity back to the white house. Al Gore has lived a decent, moral life as a sober, responsible public servant for ? years. He is married to his high school sweetheart and he there has never been any hint of scandal in his personal life".) Bush should never have gotten away with calling himself the values person.

[drummo]

172. Agree. And the divorce thing was sarcasm

Perhaps with a surrogate obliquely mentioning Bush's drinking problems whenever Bush talked about values.

Yes Gore didn't have people to do the dirty job for him. Unlike Bush.
When Gore attacked Bush the press attacked Gore for attacking Bush.
However when Bush attacked Gore the press said nothing or picked up the Bush attack and turned it on Gore.
It would have been critical to have a coordinated Dem army praising Gore and bashing Bush. Thus Gore could have remained about the fray.
But who was willing to do that?
Where were the Dems?
They let him down.

[karynnj]

177. Totally agree

Also as you can see fr0m the sentence -referring to Gore as sober and responsible, I am NOT talking about dirty tricks. Gore was a responsible person for his entire adulthood.

I think you can also take the above paragraph and substitute Kerry and it's the same. (In addition, Kerry had some Clinton people whining constantly.)

[Yupster]

31. That's what I thought Pirate

Lieberman had been the toughest critic of Clinton's among the Democratic office-holders, so Gore was showing he was not Clinton by picking the guy who criticized Clinton the most.

[salin]

159. bingo!

that was the conventional wisdom at the time of the pick.

[bobbieinok]

189. what I heard too.......don't remember ever hearing Lieberman's name

before Gore picked him

and then I read that he was on a Freedom Ride in 61 or 62; I had to admire him for that......taking part in a Freedom Ride was an extremely brave thing to do; many participants were severly beaten and hospitalized

[samdogmom]

10. Believe it or not, it was because Joe criticized Clinton's behavior

publicly in the Senate. Gore was trying to distance himself from Clinton--he mistakenly thought this was necessary to win. Liberman was supposed to help put a divide between Clinton's behavior and Gore. In retrospect it was all a VERY DUMB MOVE. And, Clinton should have been asked to help with the campaign.

[gardenista]

24. Bingo!

I suspect that Gore's judgement was clouded by a sense of personal betrayal over Clinton's behavior.

[drummo]

41. No. Gore's judgment was based on data showing Clinton

horribly unpopular in the South.

Did you take a look at the exit polls?
A fool would have used an impeached liar adulterer in his presidential campaign especially when your opponent preaches about honor and dignity while the media giving him a free ride.

[Awsi Dooger]

25. That pretty much nails it

Whenever Gore had time to think and strategize it was dangerous. You got that "say anything, do anything" tag in regard to becoming president and it stuck. Even if it was sincere and true, Gore's timing and political instincts were lousy, like his immediate stance on Elian Gonzales, which appeared to pander to South Florida Cubans. Then you keep Bill Clinton in the barn, which is like Bob Baffert or D. Wayne Lukas deciding to rest their five best Derby eligibles on the first Saturday in May, then run them in allowance races a week later.

A VP candidate is generally worth 3-4 points in the home state, especially if the state has not been represented on the ticket in a long time. That's what killed us in 2004, there didn't appear to be a viable VP candidate from Ohio, obviously the most vital state. If a John Glenn minus 20 years had been available, Kerry would be president today.

Gore had Bob Graham, who was always very popular in Florida as a former governor as well as senator. I guarantee Floridians would have overlooked any personality quirks and backed a Gore/Graham ticket. In 2004, Florida was much more polarized, the state economy was much better than the national economy, and Rove had shored up isolated areas that underperformed for the GOP in 2000. Plus Graham had bombed as a brief presidential candidate. He wasn't as viable or impactful a VP choice as he would have been in 2000.

[Crunchy Frog]

119. That Elian Gonzales thing

was pretty much what pushed me over to Nader. Of course, Lieberman didn't really help on that score either. I was actually okay with him until I saw his debate with Cheney.

Before anyone flames me, my state wasn't going to go for Gore anyway, so I do not feel personally responsible for Bush being in the WH.

[drummo]

130. Then media spin managed to push you over to Nader.

Where did you hear that Gore "changed his position" on the issue?
He was for family court from the beginning. And he talked about it a time when Florida wasn't even his target. It was solid Bush state and was not part of his strategy.

[Crunchy Frog]

132. I never heard that Gore "changed his position" on the issue,

and I never said that I did in my post. I remember very clearly when Gore STATED his position on the issue and I didn't need any media spin to feel absolutely disgusted by it.

Please don't try to tell me what does and does not influence my decisions. You don't know me and you don't know anything about me. I could just as easily claim that your position on the issue was brought about by media spin, which was overwhelmingly in favor of any sort of stunt or legal action that could keep Elian from his father for as long as possible.

[drummo]

134. And what was so disgusting about it?

When you are repeating media spin, that Gore was taking the position he took on the Elian case just to get the votes of Miami Cubans sure I can know where you got that from. It's very unlikely that you reached that conclusion on your won. You heard that several times from TV, could read it in the papers it was all over the place back then.And you don't live in a vacuum.


By constrast there was no media spin which stated that Gore's position was not politically motivated. So you of course could claim that I say what I say because of media spin just like you could claim that the Earth goes around the Sun. Neither would make much sense.


If I understand your problem with the Gore position is that he wanted to keep the child away from the father for as long as possible. That's nonsense. First of all what kept him away from his father was the politization of the issue by those idiots Miami Cuban, not Gore.
The whole case could have been solved within a few days had it not been for the entire anti-Castro bruhahah.
And just because Gore wanted it to be decided in the courts does not mean in any way that he wanted it because he wanted to keep the boy away from his father. That would be a fallacious argument.

I personally didn't care how long he was away from his father as his conditions were far better than that of millions of kids in the world.
This was a non-issue from the beginning. And the fact that you would go to Nader just because of this one totally irrelevant case shows your superficial thinking. People who have no bigger problems tend to be obsessed with small events like the Elian-saga.

Moreover what was the logic in your decision? You knew Nader would not become president. No matter what he thought about US policy toward Cuba it didn't matter since he could have never implemented those ideas. So how come someone vote for Nader just because Gore wants to
send the Elian case to a family court?
Seems to me an overly sentimental, totally irrational decision.

[Crunchy Frog]

140. Again, you misread my post. For someone who claims

to be able to look into my mind and see how I reached the conclusions that I did on something that happened more than 5 years ago, you're not doing a very good job even of reading the actual words in my posts on this thread.

I didn't say that I thought Gore was trying to keep Elian away from his father for as long as possible. I suggested that that was the agenda of the media that was spinning this whole story. The media spin that I said, somewhat tongue in cheek, had influenced you to take the position you had concerning the case.

Unlike you, I do not think that the fundamental principles of American family law are "superficial" and "totally irrelevant". If it was your own kid being held by crazy relatives would you still not care since he would still be better off than millions of other kids in the world.

I voted for Nader to make a statement. Gore was never going to win in my state anyway, so whichever way I voted, it would never have any more than symbolic value. I was trying to send a message to the Democratic party that I was sick of that kind of crap and that they could no longer simply take my vote for granted.

Anyway, why do you think there should have been any logic to my decision. Me, who's opinions are all just products of media spin and who is incapable of independent thought.

Look. We have different opinions on this issue. We're not going to change each others minds, so why don't we just leave it. You're certainly not going to get anywhere with me by telling me how superficial and irrational I am, and pretending that you know better than I do how I form my own opinions.

[drummo]

143. So you say that I wanted to keep Elian away from his father?

I didn't give a shit about Elian or about his father. I wanted the whole case to be closed as soon as possible in a non-political way. And I thought the fastest solution would be to send it to a family court since there was no chance the relatives would win.

That was hardly the media spin.

Unlike you, I do not think that the fundamental principles of American family law are "superficial" and "totally irrelevant". If it was your own kid being held by crazy relatives would you still not care since he would still be better off than millions of other kids in the world.

The problem is that phase: "fundamental principles". There are no
fundamental principles in American family law. Just like any law it is subject to interpretation (that's what courts are doing all the time) and noone has the one objective asnwer as to how they should apply in each cases.
This radical I know what those "fundamental principles" are and if you disagree your position is disgusting reminds me of those who claim that the Bible, too, have "fundamental principles" and if you don't follow them your are not a Christian.

If it was your own kid being held by crazy relatives would you still not care since he would still be better off than millions of other kids in the world.

Gimme a break. As you yourself suggested no family court would have
given the child to those relatives. It would have gone back to the father. But at least it would have been resolved as a family matter in the courts not as a geopolitical issue.


I voted for Nader to make a statement.

You didn't make any statement with that vote. Noone knew just based on your vote why you did it. Just by creating that vote you didn't send a message to anyone other than yourself. And why do you need a vote to communicate with yourself?

I was trying to send a message to the Democratic party that I was sick of that kind of crap and that they could no longer simply take my vote for granted

What crap were you sick of? That Gore wanted to solve the Elian case in a family court? That was not the Dem party's decision's but Gore's.
Therefore since you decided to vote for Nader because of that one case the only person you could have sent a message with it was Gore.
But he had of course no idea why you voted the way you did so exactly where did your message end up? How did the Democratic party or Gore himself get that message? Did you write your reasons to the ballot or what?


Anyway, why do you think there should have been any logic to my decision.

Because I tend to think that voters should be logical or not vote at all. Illogical voters (i.e. sheer stupidity) produce things like the Bush presidency and many other maladies in the US and worldwide.

Me, who's opinions are all just products of media spin and who is incapable of independent thought.

Don't exaggerate. I didn't say that all of your decisions, whatever they are, are products of media spin. I said that your position on Gore and Elian was a product of media spin. And if you voted the way you voted because of that single issue that is illogical.
Believing that you somehow sent a message to future Democratic candidates or the Dem establishment when in fact noone there could know that you voted for Nader because of Gore's decision on the Elian-case, which was done by Gore and not by other Dem pols or the Dem party, makes your decision even more irrational.

Look. We have different opinions on this issue. We're not going to change each others minds, so why don't we just leave it. You're certainly not going to get anywhere with me by telling me how superficial and irrational I am, and pretending that you know better than I do how I form my own opinions.

But you still did not explain what on earth was disgusting in Gore's position.

[Crunchy Frog]

145. I didn't say that I thought you wanted to keep Elian away from his father.

I said that was the media's agenda, not yours. You already clearly stated that you didn't give a damn one way or another and I believe you.

I know that no one in the Dem party knew or cared about my Nader vote. My state was going to go for Bush anyway, so according to your logic, it would have been irrational for me to vote for anyone at all for President. My Nader vote had symbolic value for me.

Maybe I found Gore's positions so disgusting because it APPEARED to be so much in line with that of the Miami Cubans and the RW politicians. If the purpose behind his position was actually to expedite the return of Elian to his father, he should have made that clear. As it was, he LOOKED like he was trying to pander to the far right.

I will not engage with you anymore in this discussion. I don't like to discuss things with people who deliberately misrepresent what's in my posts and prefer berating and insulting me to discussing things in a civil fashion. You are free to have the last word in this one.

[drummo]

149. You change your story. Your suggested that my position on this

matter was the result of media spin. Now you say I don't say it was your position I said it was just the media spin.

You already clearly stated that you didn't give a damn one way or another and I believe you.

I said that AFTER you suggested that I took that position because I was influenced by media spin.
With that claim you tried to counter my earlier allegation that you
think Gore's decision was politically motivated because you were influenced by media spin.

I know that no one in the Dem party knew or cared about my Nader vote. My state was going to go for Bush anyway, so according to your logic, it would have been irrational for me to vote for anyone at all for President.

No because I think the popular vote matters. It gives mandate. No popular vote no mandate. And if I said your vote doesn't matter I could said that about everyone's vote and then I should say there is no need for elections at all. Which of course I don't think.
But if you knew that noone will hear your message then why did you send it in the first place?
Again, it seems to me that you only communicated with yourself by voting for Nader and that's not particularly rational.

My Nader vote had symbolic value for me.

So for you? Just as I said.
But then don't tell me that you wanted to send a message to the Dem party with it.
You said you knew that noone in the Dem party would get your message.
But still you a said I wanted to send a message to the Dem party.
If that is not irrational I don't know what it is.

Maybe I found Gore's positions so disgusting because it APPEARED to be so much in line with that of the Miami Cubans and the RW politicians.

1.Gore agreed many times during this 24 years with Republicans even on issue which liberals hated such as the MX. That will hardly make anyone's position disgusting. Not the least because liberals can turn out to be wrong later.

2.I don't remember that the wingnuts cared so much about the "interest of the child" as Gore said. They cared about padering to the Miami Cubans and "being tough on Castro".

If the purpose behind his position was actually to expedite the return of Elian to his father, he should have made that clear.

I don't know whether his purpose was that. I do know that I supported his position because I believed it would close the case faster. I do believe however that he wanted to solve this problem as a non-political issue without US-Cuban geopolitics in the picture
and that it was a family dispute therefore should be solved in a family court.

As it was, he LOOKED like he was trying to pander to the far right.

To believe that takes a huge leap of faith. Why would a Dem try to pander to the far-right? And why would a Democrat believe that another Democrat wanted to pander to the far-right?
Gore certainly was not fond of the far-right, to put it mindly, especially not after impeachment. And he was not so stupid that he didn't know he would never get their votes.

I don't like to discuss things with people who deliberately misrepresent what's in my posts and prefer berating and insulting me to discussing things in a civil fashion.

I didn't deliberately misrepresent what you wrote but occasionally it was not clear what you meant. Other times you seemed to be confused with the timeline of my comments.

[Crunchy Frog]

142. Fundamental principles underlying American family law.

Gore's apparent willingness to jettison them was the issue for me. I don't find the issue to be superficial.

Here's something else that I found:
One of its most definitive rulings comes straight from a 1982 New York State child welfare case, Santosky v. Kramer, in which the Court declared that the due process clause of the Constitution requires that parents be found unfit before states can move against the fundamental legal bond between children and parents. "You cannot talk about best interests unless you've determined that a parent is unfit. You can not presume the interests of parent and child are opposed until you decide that parent has fallen down on the job," said Bruce A. Boyer, a professor in family law at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago. "And that's a principle that applies across the board."

In the eyes of the Supreme Court, in other words, when parents are fit, protecting a child's interests means keeping child and parent together.
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20000501/2/109

Just because you and Gore disagree with the Supreme court about this issue does not mean that I'm superficial for having the opinion that I do.

[drummo]

144. I wrote about those "Fundamental principles"

in my previous post. It takes a huge amount of arrogance to declare that you know what those "fundamental principles" are and call a different interpretation disgusting.

As I said it is not much different from fundamentalist claims that they know the "fundamental principles" of the Bible and everyone who disgrees undermines society.

Moreover, I don't see how merely sending that insane case to a family court would have automatically undermined those "fundamental principles" as it would have been very likely that the court would have followed your interpretation of the law and wouldn't have given the child to his relatives.

Just because you and Gore disagree with the Supreme court about this issue does not mean that I'm superficial for having the opinion that I do.

1.I didn't say that you are superficial just because you have a certain opinion about family law. I said that you are superficial because you voted for Nader just because of this one silly case.

2.Gore did not promote one or the other interpretation of the law. He just wanted it to be solve in a family court. He didn't want to separate Elian from his father.

3.Just because you disagree with Gore about this issue does not mean that Gore's position was disgusting.

[Crunchy Frog]

147. Gore's position was disgusting to me.

It was essentially the same position that the Miami Cubans and RW politicians were taking, and he said nothing at all to indicate that he disagreed with them.

The INS has jurisdiction over cases involving foreigners. U.S. family courts do not.

I'm through discussing this with you.

[drummo]

150. It was not the same since the RW didn't give a shit about

the kid's best interest. They just wanted a fight with Castro and the votes of Miami Cubans.

The INS has jurisdiction over cases involving foreigners. U.S. family courts do not.

That's actually not more compassionate approach than that of the right-wingers.

[Crunchy Frog]

152. The RW claimed that their concern was the best interest of the kid.

Here is a series of links to show that I was far from being the only person to interpret Al Gore's position as I did.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/gonz-a01.shtml
The response of Vice President Al Gore, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president in the November elections, was to publicly break with the policy of his own administration and align himself with the CANF. On March 30 Gore announced his support for a bill that would take the case of Elian Gonzalez out of the hands of the INS and the federal courts and place it under the jurisdiction of Florida child custody courts.

This proposal, which coincides with the legal strategy of Elian's Miami relatives, contravenes established national and international law as well as basic precepts concerning the democratic rights of refugees, which uphold the right of children to be reunited with their parents. It would, in effect, strip Elian Gonzalez and his father of this fundamental right and set the stage for a politically-motivated judge to sanction what amounts to the kidnapping of a child.

http://www.thegully.com/essays/cuba/elian/000229goreelian.html
Which brings us to Al Gore.

It was Florida- presidential- vote hungry Gore, and Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida), who pressured an accommodating Clinton to say "no" to the illustrious proponents of the bipartisan commission. Ten months before Elian Gonzalez floated into America's consciousness on an inner tire on November 1999, a major opportunity to set a rational Cuba policy had been cowardly dumped in the can.

The stage was set for the Elian saga and Gore's callous questioning of the INS decision to reunite the boy with his father in Cuba. Although the media dutifully lapped up Gore's bons mots as "Al distances himself from Bill", just as the spin masters intended, the Elian "mots" were in fact part and parcel of the Administration's ongoing duplicitous strategy.

Which brings us back to Elian Gonzalez.

I propose this for his English primer:

See Al eat Elian.
See Al spit him out after the Florida primaries (or, even the November elections, after the little one eats his second stuffed turkey in the land of the free).
See Al run!

http://truthnews.net/comment/2000_05_al.html

That would mean, according to Gore advisers, that the vice president believes the case is better resolved in Florida's family courts--a clear break from administration policy. Gore's statement was released by his campaign a short time after the administration position was criticized by GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush.

In a close presidential race, the Cuban-American vote could be critical in Florida where the fate of 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez has angry Miami-area voters saying they will unite behind Republican George W. Bush.

Most of the 780,000 Cuban-Americans who live in the area are furious at the Clinton administration for ordering the youngster's return to Cuba. And the political fallout could be devastating for Democrat Al Gore as President Clinton's vice president, whatever his own views on the Gonzalez case.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/03/31/MN46414.DTL
If Congress were to pass the legislation, it would remove the case from the jurisdiction of the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service and assign it to a Florida family court.

Gore's entry into the case -- which won praise, albeit
barbed, from Republican presidential rival George W. Bush -- came as an impasse continued between attorneys for the Miami relatives who now have custody of Elian and the INS over an agreement to turn the boy over. Hours of negotiations in Miami ended with only an agreement to put off more talks until Monday.

Campaigning in Wisconsin, Bush said: ``I'm glad the vice president has seen the wisdom of the way, and what he ought to do is convince the attorney general and the president to accept the same position. . . . We'll see what kind of influence he has in this administration.''

White House aides reacted with a measure of disdain, but hardly surprise, at what was interpreted as a strictly self-protective move by Gore. Democratic sources said Gore's political team feared the Elian case could badly undermine his presidential prospects in Florida, an electorally rich state that Gore wants to win or at least force Bush to devote significant campaign resources there.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/121400/Election2000/10_reasons_why_Al_Gor.shtml
In the spring, Al Gore tried to score points with the Cuban-American community when he broke with the Clinton administration over the issue of Elian Gonzalez, the 6-year-old Miami shipwreck survivor who wound up at the center of an international custody dispute. The vice president said the boy should be given permanent residency status in the U.S., which even his allies recognized as pandering.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/040500-108.htm
And then Al Gore comes along and says that Elian should not be reunited with his father. Thanks, Al. A real profile in courage you are.

Let's turn this one around for a second. Assume an American couple went to Cuba with their kid, and the dad returned home on business, while the mom stayed on. Say the mom dies in an accident, and distant relatives in Cuba insist on keeping the kid.

Do you think the United States would sit still for that? No way. The Green Berets would be there in a second.

But when it's a Cuban kid in the United States, all of a sudden it's a lot different. It shouldn't be. The principle is the same: The bond between parent and child should not be severed except in the most extreme circumstances when the parent is unfit.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/040400-106.htm
Al Gore really does care about Elian Gonzalez. The vice president's appeal to Congress to erect legal barriers to the return of the kidnapped boy to his Cuban father really was a sincere expression of interest in the youngster's well-being. This has nothing to do with Gore's desire to carry the Miami Cuban vote, which could be critical to his winning Florida this fall.

There is only one thing that anyone needs to know about the Democratic presidential candidate's embrace of the extremist, legally absurd and morally wrong position in the whole Elian matter: The vice president is playing politics.

Gore's advisers think that he might be able to win Florida in November if he can carry Dade County, where Cuban-American voters form a large and volatile voting bloc. So Gore is playing to them, taking a stand that "every immigration authority I know of outside Dade County, Florida, agrees'' is wrong, according to Temple University immigration law specialist Jan Ting.

Gore's stance on the Elian matter neatly sums up why millions of loyal Democrats remain ill at ease with his presidential candidacy. The vice president seems to be uncomfortable running as a Democrat. Instead, he evidences a determination to out-Republican the Republicans.

Elian Gonzalez should be sent home to Cuba. Al Gore should be sent to the woodshed.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/041100-102.htm

I Know - One More Opinion On Elian Gonzalez And You're Going To Urp

The number of people who feel entitled to fling themselves into this family's business is extraordinary.

Al Gore's pander on the issue is simply disgusting -- although following the law and then granting Elian Gonzalez permanent residency status so he could return here at age 18 if he wants to is not a bad way out of this mess.



If you Google "Al Gore Elian Gonzalez" you will find that the overwhelming consensus is that Gore was pandering to RW South Florida Cubans for the sake of his electoral prospects in the state.

It is clear that the attempt to move the jurisdiction of the case from the INS to the Florida family courts, which would have required the passage of a whole new piece of legislation to accomplish, was mainly seen as an attempt to throw up maximum road blocks to Elian's being reunited with his father. Judges in the Florida courts were very likely to be strongly biased and heavily influenced by the politics of the state. Sending it to the family courts could have kept the case tangled up for years which is what the Miami Cubans were counting on.

This attempt to pass legislation to bypass the law of the land for the sake of one single case involving one single boy is highly reminiscent of the similar example that we saw in the Terry Schiavo case.

I know I promised not to post on this again, but I'm having too much fun, and I thought that other people might find these links of interest, even though I expect that you will contemptuously dismiss them.:)

[drummo]

154. Of course the RW said that since they always try to hide their real agenda

The difference is that I don't trust them since they indeed had a very strong political interest
and they usually don't care about anyone other than themselves.
But Gore was never like them and he had only to lose politically with this move, nothing to win.


Here is a series of links to show that I was far from being the only person to interpret Al Gore's position as I did.

It was needless since I told you earlier that I know all too well the media spin around this issue.
We wouldn't be even talking about this had it not been all over the media at the time.
But there were millions of people who wrote and said all kind of hogwash about Gore -- such as that he had a priviliged, rich life as a kid -- just because the echo-chamber media created an urban legend.
In this case, as in many other, the truth is that just because more than one person believes something it will not make it true.

You quoted Commondreams 3 times and the WSWS. Far left-wing mouthpieces who had an interest in 2000 to portray Gore in the possible worst light. Why didn't you cite right-wing mouthpieces which made the same accusation?

So a Commondreams scribe thought "Al Gore's pander on the issue is simply disgusting". Which is the same what you said and which I questioned. Just because someone's opinion differs form your or his/her it will not make that opinion disgusting. So what does this prove?
Both of you are dead wrong, nothing else.

You quoted a sptimes scribe who claims that " even his allies recognized as pandering."
Who were these so-called allies?
What did they know about Gore's motivations?
Did they talk to him before he made the decision?
Why should anyone consider them credible?
Or is this scribe credible who referred to these unnamed
sources or he is merely part of the echo-chamber with an agenda who made up a few sources to pretend his opinion is fact?

You quoted the sfgate which shows that Bush agreed with Gore's decision. So what? Just because Bush agrees with Gore on something that will make Gore automatically a panderer? Or his position disgusting? Gore and Bush agreed on many other things during the campaign. I guess you think that each of those case proves that he pandered to the far-right.

And who are those "Democratic sources"?
Why should anyone think they are credible or even exist at all?
Is it their opinion or they heard Gore actually tell them 'I need to do this because I need votes in Miami?'
Is the scribe credible himself or he just repeated what was in the echo-chamber at the time, similarly to the "even his allies admit that Gore exaggerates"?

Who are those people in "Gore's political team" who "feared the Elian case could badly undermine his presidential prospects in Florida, an electorally rich state that Gore wants to win or at least force Bush to devote significant campaign resources there."?
Was this their own interpretation of the situation or did they hear if from Gore?
Why did they think that Gore wanted to target Florida?(Gore didn't even go to Florida at the time)
Was it their speculation or Gore told them?
And is it true at all that those mysterious members of that team indeed told this to this scribe?

You quoted truthnews.net.
Who is this scribe?
Why should he be considered credible on what Gore was thinking before he broke with the administration?
Did Gore talk to him? (hardly)
Does he have quotes which confirms his speculation?


So you cited a bunch of opinions from the echo-chamber that I already was familar with but no evidence that any of those opinons was based on anything Gore actually said.

Do you want to see a list of opinions in the press which called Gore everything from traitor to insane? And the countless other speculations about his supposed political calculations, from the beard to opposing the IWR?
By the same token you should take those at face value , as well.

[Crunchy Frog]

168. I Googled. I found everything from the far left to the center

to the far right. I grabbed whatever I found in order to make the point that the consensus was the same, whatever the source or the political ideology. The Commondreams articles had been culled from various newspaper articles and editorials, one of them was an editorial by Molly Ivins, that master of media spin. Oh, and I did cite RW sources including George Bush himself. :) Wherever I looked, the consensus was overwhelming, and there were no alternate interpretations. The WSW and George Bush and everything in between, interpreted this the same way.

Al Gore himself never tried to distance his stated opinion from the agenda of the RW Miami Cubans.

If you can hunt up anything written from that time period that offers up a different interpretation from that which I found, then I would very much like to see it. I didn't see it in anything that came up on Google.

I know you can find all kinds of other crap about Gore in the media, but I doubt very much that any of it will demonstrate this level of consensus from accross the political spectrum and with no alternative explanations or interpretations to be found.

[Crunchy Frog]

183. What, no answer this time? I guess that means...

[drummo]

194. No I just got a sleep after being awake for 30 hours.

[drummo]

190. RE:"I Googled. I found everything from the far left to the center"

I Googled. I found everything from the far left to the center to the far right. I grabbed whatever I found in order to make the point that the consensus was the same, whatever the source or the political ideology.

But what did you want to prove with citing those scribes? Of course the media consensus was that Gore pandered to the Miami Cubans. I told you that I know what the media spin was. If it hadn't been that spin we wouldn't even talk about this issue because it wouldn't have been an issue during the campaign itself.

Other nonsense about Gore has become consensus in the press. I know very well what they did to him. But by merely reciting them you will not prove that they were right.


The Commondreams articles had been culled from various newspaper articles and editorials, one of them was an editorial by Molly Ivins, that master of media spin.

And if Molly Ivins says that the Earth is flat then the Earth is flat or what?
She can have her opinion. It's like a body part, everybody has one. But neither she nor anybody else in the media ever provided evidence that Gore's motivations were indeed those which the media thought they were. They cannot read Gore's mind. But sure they were hostile toward him all along -- left, mainstream, right alike.

Wherever I looked, the consensus was overwhelming, and there were no alternate interpretations.

The consensus among who? And how do you know whether there were alternate interpretations or not? Just because you didn't see them on the Net or in the papers or didn't see on on TV? Most people do not publish articles about what they think. But just because a few hundred or even few thousand do that will not make their opinion more credible.
The articles you cited never name names. They refer to "Gore team" and "allies". Those people could be the authors' inventions -- as it is often the case with scribes who have an agenda or just want to smear someone. None of them quoted Gore, none of them had evidence that Gore's motivations were political.

So what can be done with their consensus?
1. It doesn't make sense because it assumes that Gore didn't look at the polls and didn't see that he would be hurt politically nationwide -- of course many of the same scribe frequently accused Gore of paying too much attention to polls. They can't have it both ways.

2.It was just another echo-chamber smear against Gore. So many other happened during the campaing and after, where you could find 100s of articles and commentaries preaching the same talking points about Gore. But no matter how many of them repeat them and how often they will still remain just lies.

The WSW and George Bush and everything in between, interpreted this the same way.

Actually Bush was not quoted saying that Gore wanted to pander to the Miami Cubans. He sure thought that but Bush thought many things about Gore which were not true.
The WSW is a joke by default, it's a far left mouthpiece which has bashed Dems as much as it has bashed Reps.

Al Gore himself never tried to distance his stated opinion from the agenda of the RW Miami Cubans.

Al Gore himself never made the claims you can read in those articles, that he wanted a family court to intervene because he wanted to get the Cuban votes. Nor is there anyone who would have claimed he heard Gore saying that. (Like 'He told me....')
The difference between the RW and Gore was that the RW didn't care about Elian and they knew the case would benefit them politically. Gore cared about the boy and he knew his position would hurt him politically.

If you can hunt up anything written from that time period that offers up a different interpretation from that which I found, then I would very much like to see it.

You already have my interpretation. Why would that be worse than that of some WSW scribes or Molly Ivins? Are their opinion somehow superior just because they write articles?

I know you can find all kinds of other crap about Gore in the media, but I doubt very much that any of it will demonstrate this level of consensus from accross the political spectrum

Both the left and the right had a very good reason to use this against Gore.
The left wanted Elian to leave as soon as possible. Any Dem who broke with that position automatically alienated and angered the left. At the same time the right could use this case to portray Gore as a "would do anything to get elected" candidate. So it's not a surprise that you can see the same spin from both sides.


and with no alternative explanations or interpretations to be found.

Here's a somewhat different explanation from Bill Turque:


NOVAK: Knowing all there is to know about him, now, if you have been told when you were writing the book that there was going to be an episode such as this Elian Gonzalez case, which way would you have predicted the vice president would go, what would you have predicted that he did?

TURQUE: That's really hard to know. Look, I think there's no question that he's looking for opportunities to differentiate himself from Bill Clinton, looking for opportunities to pull the sword from the stone, as one of his aides likes to say, and there's no question that he also sees an opportunity in Florida. They see an opportunity with second and third-generation Cuban-Americans who are not quite as rigidly Republican as their grandparents and parents.

But I also think that he's also a father and I don't think that this is totally craven, totally calculated political move. I think he -- there's a place that he truly does care what happens to this kid and, you know, there's always a mixture of conviction and calculation with Gore.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/31/cf.00.html

Now which one? Does he care about the boy or he wants votes in Florida? Mixture of convinction and calculation? The two would rule each other out. And always? Can you take such a serial exaggerator like Turque seriously?
This is the same Turque who wrote in his book that Gore said he invented the Internet, that he said he and Tipper were the models for Love Story and in the same show he said this about Gore's Love Canal comment:

"He was definitely trying to leave the impression to the casual listener in that episode, I thought, that he was -- he had more of a role in it than he actually did."

In reality he credited that girl in Tennessee not even himself. But he was definitely exaggerating. Turque knows that because he knows that Gore always calculates.

Turque's account is totally speculative ('I think') just like those of the others. And hell he wouldn't have namen those 'aides' just like those other scribes you cited.
Nor can we know whether 'those aides' ever talked to Gore about the issue at all or they just expressed their own opinion.
But Gore has been misunderstood so many times and no matter what he did , as you could hear from Turque himself, it was always seen as a calculation. Always. Another idiot said in an online article after the SNL episode that Gore doesn't do anything without calculation. Obviously he couldn't even eat a hod-dog without political calculation.

So what's new in the articles you cited? Nothing. Gore was calculating about the Elian case we know that for sure because we know that Gore always calculates. That was the "logic" of the press, yes left, middle and right, when they talked about Gore. They already had their narrative and span Gore's every action to fit into that narrative. Elian was just one of those actions.

I don't trust these bastards. They lied too much, speculated too much and they pretended they always had access to Gore's mind.

Here's Gore own account. This is actually a real quote, unlike those "they said this they said that" statements in those articles:

AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, my position is the same as it's been for the last five months, Larry. I think the decision on custody ought to be made according to what is in the best interests of the child, and that decision should be made pursuant to due process, the way it is always made in our court system, preferably by a family court, but if not, by people with the expertise and body of experience and judgment to make those decisions.

Actually, I think the best way to resolve this, as I've said previously, would be for the family members to get together, without any lawyers and without any government officials from either country, and let them work it out.

KING: Should the boy be with the father until it is worked out? That's what the father is asking. He'll stay. Should, though, as a father, he be entitled to have his boy until decisions are made?

A. GORE: Well, I think that decision ought to be made according to what is in the boy's best interest. Usually a family court or a decision-maker following those kinds of procedures gives tremendous weight to the views and preferences of a surviving parent, but not always, if there are other factors involved. And due process means that it ought to be a decision that's made according to what is in the best interest of the child. And that's a pretty simple principle, it seems to me, and I think that would be the best way to go about it.

But again, if the family members could get together themselves, as those -- as the Florida relatives have suggested, I think that just kick all the lawyers and the government officials out of the room, and let them talk it through.

KING: You think that might happen?

A. GORE: I hope it will. It's been -- it hasn't happened yet, but I hope it will.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/20/lkl.00.html

[Crunchy Frog]

196. I made my point in my last post. I don't expect to satisfy you

but I got my point accross which is what I wanted. Signing off now.:)

[drummo]

198. Your point was that your repeated the very media spin that I

said was nothing but hostile specualtion. You apparently are unable to understand that just because X number of people believe something it will not be automatically true.
Basically your point was that you believe that Gore was pandering because so many other people believed the same. Otherwise why did you
cite those articles?
But there were times when most people thought the Earth was going around the Sun. And just because millions believed that it was not true.

What you should do is to provide evidence that Gore ever said to anyone I do this because I want to win Florida.
Without that you have no case, just allegations.

You surely wouldn't win this in a court where you have to actually prove your allegations. But politics is different unfortunately. It's enough to repeat something and it becomes the truth.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

202. With a Wes Clark avatar, raising the issue of pandering,

is not a good idea.

Gore said when he endorsed Dean that we shouldn't slam other Democrats.
But a theme has emerged on numerous Gore threads since Katrina, i.e., since Gore has emerged as the cyberspace front runner. That theme is Clark backers slamming Gore.

To raise pandering as an issue against Gore, one of which he was over-accused by the MSM as part of the War on Gore in 2000, is a mistake in my view, especially by Clarkies.

Elian was the Schiavo issue of 2000, i.e. essentially irrelevant in terms of important, substantive issues, yet a favorite media and RW topic. No documentation can be produced for Gore's "pandering" other than speculation.

Iraq, on the other hand, is a crucial issue for the US. A case for Clark's pandering on Iraq can be made from his own words.

Let me state for the record that I think a Gore-Clark ticket could be very strong (to early to tell for sure) and I would enthusiastically support it. But in an effort to bash the front runner, Clark backers should be aware of their own glass house where pandering is concerned.

[Crunchy Frog]

219. Huh!?!

Based on my AVATAR, I'm not allowed to express my opinions about anything concerning Gore? For your information buddy, I did not make these posts as a "Clarkie". I made them as a dues paying member of Democratic Underground, a registered Democrat, and someone who happened to have very strong feelings about this issue back in 2000 and whose vote was influenced by it.

My posts had nothing whatsoever to do with Clark. I posted something in response to a similar post and then got jumped all over and pushed into defending my position.

I was not posting as a "Clarkie". If you want to lump me into some simplistic category in order to dismiss what I'm saying, you can say that I was posting as a 2000 Nader voter. What, do you think that I voted for Nader out of a hope that Clark would run 8 years later?:eyes:

If there's one thing on this board that I hate, it's posters who refuse to see other posters as individuals and instead treat them as categories, and then see every post made by an individual poster as a post by the entire category somehow marching in lockstep. Also interpreting everything in terms of candidate wars for the primary season that is still 2 years away. I promise never to respond to one of your posts with a "someone with a Gore avatar shouldn't be saying..." or a "your point really isn't valid because there's a pattern of Gore backers...", or accuse you of engaging in primary wars should you happen to say something critical of any Democrat other than Gore.

I can and I will post whatever the hell I want, whenever the hell I want, and I don't give a flying fuck what you think of my avatar, or my candidate preference.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

223. I'll take your word for it,

regarding your motivation.

One point I was raising was that disgust seems a strange reaction regarding the Elian case, since, like Terry Schiavo, it was an irrelevant issue. In both cases it was a media circus for ratings concerning something of essentially no newsworthy value.

[Crunchy Frog]

226. Well, I'm through trying to argue with people about

why I felt the way I did. I can tell you that based on my message board lurking at the time, I was far from the only one who felt disgusted. Molly Ivins said she felt disgusted in one of her columns as well.

Who can say why something is meaningful to one person and irrelevant to another? In any event, people's feelings are what they are, and it's usually pretty pointless to try to argue them out of their feelings.

FWIW, I was also disgusted by the politicization of the Schiavo case, and would have been very unhappy with any Democratic politician who appeared to be aligning themselves with the religious loonies surrounding it. There's some indication that disgust with that incident has made some Repugs begin to question their own party. I don't take that kind of thing lightly.

Please understand. This is only my own opinion. I don't ask anyone to share it, but I don't expect to be attacked for it either. A little mutual tolerance goes a long way.

[drummo]

39. Mistakenly? No way. He was dead right. Read this on Kos:

Gore facts (none / 0)

If Al Gore was 20 points behind, it was because he was Al Gore. People did not like the guy, and they did not warm up enough to him to elect him president. All the polls showed that Clinton would have buried Bush. He was far more popular than Gore was. That is a fact. I can't figure out why all these people think Gore was hurt by Clinton's Monica problem, when Clinton himself wasn't hurt by it.

Maybe people got complacent, maybe they wanted change for the sake of change. All I know is that it has to be a lot easier to run as part of a succesful administration than a failed one. Yet Gore ran away from Clinton's success. He basically hid the guy away. And then he lost the election (blah, blah, blah I know he really won, but you need to win by a significant amount to overcome republican cheating, so he didn't win).

It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

by lando on Mon Sep 26th, 2005 at 08:33:11 PDT

Lando basically said what you say: Clinton would have been an asset for Gore in 2000.
But that is a Democratic urban legend not supported by the actual data.
Read the response to lando on Kos and see it yourself. There's a lot of data which prove Clinton was not more popular in 2000 than Gore, that he was not more popular than Bush and that Gore couldn't have come up in the polls had he not distanced himself from Clinton.
In short: Clinton was a loser in 2000.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/25/19349/8314

[AlGore-08.com]

188. Just to set the record straight: some actual 2000 polls about Clinton

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/06/cnn.time.poll/index.html

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 4-5
Favorable Ratings
Former President Bush 73%
Hillary Clinton 45
Bill Clinton 42

Sampling error: +/-3% pts
CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 4-5
How Clinton Has Handled His Job as President
Approve 57%
Disapprove 40

Sampling error: +/-3% pts
CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 4-5
Whose Opinions Do You Respect More?
Former President Bush 61%
Bill Clinton 34

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 4-5
Who Would You Vote For?
Former President Bush 53%
Bill Clinton 42*

Sampling error: +/-3% pts

*Smirk was polling at 56% in this same poll


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/13/cnn.poll/

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 11-12

Does Vice President Al Gore's ties with President Bill Clinton make you feel more favorably toward Gore or less favorably toward Gore, or do they have no effect on your view of him?


More favorable 7%

Less favorable 32

No effect 60


Sampling error: +/-3% pts

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 11-12

If the Democratic nomination for president were still being decided and if Bill Clinton could run again, would you rather see the Democrats nominate Al Gore or Bill Clinton for president?


Gore Clinton


Democrats 48% 46%

Independents 52 29

Republicans 58 12


Sampling error: +/-6% pts


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/21/cnn.poll/

Rating the speeches at the Democratic convention:

Gore Clinton


Excellent/good 52% 44%

Just okay 18 16

Poor/terrible 6 13

Sampling error: +/-3% pts


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/07/cnn.poll/index.html

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
August 7
Lieberman's Criticism of Bill Clinton
More favorable 26%
Less favorable 21
No difference 50

Sampling error: +/-4% pts

[drummo]

199. Thanks. This myth that Gore was a fool not to use Clinton has to be killed

once and for all.

Clinton was not popular in 2000 -- despite his high job approval rating, which was all about the economy not about Clinton himself.

The bottom line is that Clinton was a loser in 2000 and who would use a loser in his campaign?

[FSogol]

11. He was looking for a candidate who wasn't Bill Clinton

A morally straight candidate.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. The DLC was mismanaging Gore's campaign, just as they later did Kerry's.

I'm sure that the Lieberman pick came right from Al From's desk.

I'd be willing to bet that some point was made about the "moral high ground" of Lieberman being the first "Democrat" to condemn Clinton over Blowjobgate, and since Gore (or his DLC handlers) had already made the decision to exclude Clinton from the campaign entirely. An obvious mistake, given the economic success of the administration.

Actually, Lieberman might have helped with the Jewish vote in Florida.....had the deliberately corrupted machines not turned them all into Buchanan votes!

[safi0]

18. Wouldn't Graham

Have been better in Florida.

There were 45 Democratic Senators at this time I like to say Gore's choice was the 43rd worse choice he could've made. The only people who would've been worse than Lieberman were Kennedy and Byrd. Lieberman offered no help with the base, and didn't have any geographical advantages. If he would've chosen someone like Graham or Edwards they could've helped in the South. If he would've chosen a true progressive like Wellstone or Durbin, he could've solidified the base nixing some of the Nader vote.

[pnorman]

23. "...he could've solidified the base nixing some of the Nader vote"

Had he campaigned as a DEMOCRAT, instead of a "better alternative to Bush", he wouldn't have had to worry about the Nader vote, REGARDLESS of his VP running mate. Would that have "guaranteed" victory? No guarantee, but even a "loss" (stolen or otherwise) would have put the Democratic Party in a FAR better position to come back as a winner ... perhaps even in the 2002 mid-term elections.

pnorman
http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone/# STAND UP KEEP FIGHTING!

[drummo]

44. Edwards didn't help Kerry in the South. He wouldn't have helped

Gore, either.

As for Graham that pick he would have been portrayed in the press as just another "evidence" that Gore would do anything to get elected.
It would have been yet another Gonzales-case.

[drummo]

42. No, it didn't come from Al From. It came from Gore in 1998!

Read the book Divided we Stand

Nonone expect Gore made that decision.

[drummo]

43. What DLC handlers? Name them

The DLC hated Gore's populist campaign.

They were eager to come out with a 'Why Gore Lost' report short after the Supreme 5 decision. They bashed Gore for being populist and said he should have ran a middle-of-the-road campaign like Clinton did in 1992.

Picking Joe had nothing to do with the DLC. It was Gore's decision back in 1998, during the impeachment saga.

[Q]

153. Gore ran as a populist only during the last part of his campaign...

...when he FINALLY threw off the DLC advisors...who were advising him (just like they did Kerry) to run a 'safe' campaign that didn't offend the right. His poll number didn't rise until he started the populist campaign...must to the chargin of the DLCers.

Gore and Lieberman were both DLC until the falling out during the campaign. The idea was to get one or two DLCers in a position to be president. Lieberman was chosen for sometime down the road.

[drummo]

155. That last part of the campaign was right from the convention

Which is the campaign in the general election.
The DLC critics didn't even mention his pre-convention performance in their "Why Gore lost" report.

Even during the primaries his rethoric was populist but since Bradley was even more liberal it wouldn't have made much sense to use as black-and-white rethoric as he used at and after the convention.
In the general election he used populist language to contrast himself with Bush. But that wouldn't have worked with Bradley. After all was Bradley for the powerful? No.

Between securing the nomination and the convention he basically bashed Bush and outlined various policy proposals -- which the press always portrayed as yet another reinvention. But there was no contradiction between those proposals and populism -- unless you were a far-left liberal.

After the convention he did not get rid of the advisors he had before the convention. His team changed only during the primaries. Or do you know an exception? I can't remember any.

By the way, who were those so-called "DLC advisors"? Was anyone on his staff a DLC member?

Gore himself was indeed a DLC member but that was irrelevant since the DLC couldn't stand his populism. Did he listen to anyone in the DLC leadership?

Lieberman was picked by Gore and Gore only back in 1998 not in 2000. The DLC had nothing to do with it.

[NotGivingUp]

13. Democrats have to STOP COMPROMISING!!! ....AND voters...

have to vote with what they know is best. NO COMPROMISE!!!!!!!

[drummo]

45. No compromise will lead to futher loss. Most of the coutry is NOT

liberal. That's what it is.

[NotGivingUp]

15. Lieberman is the BIGGEST lame ass.....

we will get nowhere with lieberman except buried!

[goodhue]

16. Florida

eom

[sandnsea]

17. Should have chosen charismatic Kerry

Yep, that's what the media said in 2000, too bad the 2004 rank and file forgot about it and helped the right wing smear campaign. The real mistake is that WE don't learn from any of them.

[drummo]

46. And Kerry would have helped Gore to win...err.. Massachusetts

It would have been great.

[sandnsea]

55. Er, excuse me, No Nader

Kerry hadn't been smeared by the left in 2000, he'd have swung enough of the Nader vote to win Florida and reduce it in the rest of the country. It would have been much harder for Nader to smear Gore with Kerry on the ticket.

In any event, I see you missed the point anyway. Smear Dems, Help Pubs. It's that simple.

[drummo]

57. Why do you think that Nader likes Kerry or would have liked him

more than he liked Gore in 2000?

Kerry is a Democrat. And Nader made it clear that he
has problems with the Dem party itself, no matter who is on the ticket.

I don't see any evidence that if the most enviro-friendly Dem (Gore)
was not good enough for Naderits in Florida then Kerry would have been the one to concinve them to vote for Gore.

[sandnsea]

59. You don't want to see

Kerry has way better environmental credentials than Gore. Kerry got endorsements from environmental groups that no other candidate had ever gotten. Kerry and Nader go way way back to the first Earth Day. Kerry initiated the work that ended up with Acid Rain legislation passed, work on oceans and fisheries, lots more. It's pathetic what ignorant "activists" did to John Kerry this year, but it wouldn't have happened in 2000 because there was no "voted for the war" bullshit then.

[drummo]

70. He doesn't have better environmental credentials than Gore.

The best environmental credential is if you raise the damn issue as often as possible. Because you can vote the way you want unless most people doesn't get it you cannot make a damn difference. Most people are not interested in the environment by default. You have to hammer their head with the issues otherwise they don't give a shit. You cannot clean up the environment by laws alone. You can do that only if the people who live in that environment actually want to clean it up.
And no pol can compete with Gore on that whether it is about the ozone hole, toxic waste sites or global warming.

One example for "raising the issue" when few cared about it:
"I actually think he's done a great job. I mean, he really did work, when nobody else was working, on trying to define what the hazards were in this country and how to clean it up and helping with the Superfund and other legislation."
Lois Gibbs about Gore on "Hardball," Dec. 1, 1999

Kerry got endorsements from environmental groups that no other candidate had ever gotten.

Of course because in 2004 the fools realized that Bush was in fact much worse than Gore on the environment, that they were dead wrong in 2000 to promote the idea that somehow Bush would be good for the environment because he would anger the greens so much they would be much more active. Those who endorsed Nader in 2000 or refused to support Gore because they were brainwashed by Nader's propaganda against Gore changed their minds in 2004.
But in 2000 they wouldn't have been fair toward Kerry just like they were not fair toward Gore. They had Nader after all.
But in 2004, thanks to Bush, Nader was irrelevant because liberals and greens were scared to death thinking about 4 more Bush years.

And even if Kerry had won the support of more of those groups than Gore had the two run against each other in 2000 that doesn't mean anything since people in those group can be just as stupid, ignorant and unfair as people anywhere.
So I wouldn't call someone better on the environment just because so-called environmental groups endorse him or her.

Finally, people vote for president not vice president. If those greens were so angry at Gore in 2000 they would have been angry at him with Kerry as his running mate, as well.

[sandnsea]

74. People demanded Superfund

After the Cuyahoga River, people were demanding Congress do something about corporate pollution. There was no fight to it, I don't know where Lois Gibbs got the idea there was. Acid Rain, on the other hand, was completely unknown in the 80's and took true leadership. Gore is good on the environment, but he has never been the go-to guy for the environment like John Kerry has been. You can piss on him all you want, and the "so-called environmental groups", but that's just the truth of it.

Oh, and the fact that you don't know that concern for the environment is the one issue where all voters intersect, that it's the most likely place for Democrats to pick up voters, well, kind of says it all about your opinions on the issue.

[drummo]

81. Lois Gibbs probably knows better

what happened being the very person who brought the issue to public attention. If anyone she understood how much resistance was there.
Saying that there was no fight is ridiculous. There was a bunch of special interest who hated the whole idea.

How many people "demanded" Superfund? And how did we get there? What Gibbs talked about was BEFORE Superfund was on the table. Read the part in the Earth in the Balance where Gore writes about the early days of the toxic waste site issue. It was Gore who held the first hearing on Love Canal. Not Kerry not anyone else. Period.

Acid Rain, on the other hand, was completely unknown in the 80's and took true leadership.

It was unknown by whom? Surely not by Gore. He didn't get the idea from Kerry.

Gore is good on the environment, but he has never been the go-to guy for the environment like John Kerry has been.

He was far more the go-to guy than Kerry ever was. Kerry touched on a few issues but he never
promoted environmental awareness as consistently and as relenstlessly as Gore did. Just check out his record. Even on the legistlative front the vast majority of bills Gore sponsored or co-sponsored were about the environment. Kerry cannot compete with that -- being a fairly inactive legistlator.

You can piss on him all you want, and the "so-called environmental groups", but that's just the truth of it.

Prove it.
Gimme a comprative list of the Gore bills and the Kerry bills and also every occasion when Gore was talking or writing about environment and Kerry was doing the same and also the occasions when Gore was active in some kind of international effort for environment protection and when Kerry did the same.
Let's see who wins.
If Kerry had cared so much about the environment he would have written a book about it like he did about international crime.

Oh, and the fact that you don't know that concern for the environment is the one issue where all voters intersect,

Hahahaha. Good joke. Americans don't give a shit about the environment in presidential elections. They didn't care in 1988 (ask Gore about that) in 1992, 1996 in 2000 or in 2004. They care about taxes, gasoline, jobs, health care, SocSec, NasSec, abortion, guns, gays what not but not about the environment. It's always among the dead last issues in the voter concerns polls.

that it's the most likely place for Democrats to pick up voters, well, kind of says it all about your opinions on the issue.

Except if you have a Ralph Nader in the race and his green supporters who promote the idea that there is no difference between Dems and Reps on the environment.
And except is you are perceived as an enviromental extremist in places like coal-rich West Virginia and Tennessee.

[DrFunkenstein]

76. Kerry Has One of the Greenest Records in Senate History

Just ask the Nader-founded group Public Citizen. Kerry's Senate history is known for three things: massive, wide-spreading investigations, environmentalism, and an internationalist foreign policy. I'd throw in his work on campaign finance reform with Paul Wellstone, but since it merely laid the groundwork for future reforms, and did not pass a floor vote, I'm not sure if it would be included.

In any case, Kerry's enviro credentials are nearly flawless.

[drummo]

84. Yes but not greener than Gore's 24 years. It was not Kerry who was called

the 'Ozone Man' by Bush Sr. Probably because Kerry did not step on the Bush administration's toes so agressively with regard to the environment. You can know someone's zeal from the reaction of his enemies.

And for Nader nothing would have been green enough in 2000 because he wanted as many liberal votes as possible to get that damn 5%. That was his only objective, not protecting the environment, and there is no reason to believe he would have moderated his views and backed down had Kerry been Gore's running mate.

[sandnsea]

87. Nader again

Nader's goals would have been alot more obvious if he'd come out against both Gore & Kerry on the environment. Kerry would have won the 2000 election, Florida & NH. No question about it.

[drummo]

90. Kerry was not running for president in 2000 so why would Nader

have come out against him personally? He came out againts the Dem party as a whole and said several time they were not better than the Reps. He never said, oh but there is one exception: John Kerry.

You have no evidence whatsoever that Kerry would have won more votes or more states in 2000 than Gore did. For one thing, Kerry was even less associated with the economic boom than Gore was. And Mass liberals have no chance to win national elections, anyway.

[sandnsea]

92. You said he would

Now you say Nader wouldn't. :shrug:

And you're repeating more right wing bullshit, which was the point of my original post. Mass liberals can't win national elections??? As long as Democrats, which I highly doubt that you are, but as long as people on the left repeat right wing bullshit, Democrats will lose. That's a bigger problem than Gore choosing Lieberman, in the end. You did, at least, prove that point all by yourself.

[drummo]

98. What?

You said:
Nader's goals would have been a lot more obvious if he'd come out against both Gore & Kerry on the environment.

I said:
Kerry was not running for president in 2000 so why would Nader
have come out against him personally?


OK? Nader would have attacked Kerry IF he had been the Dem candidate.
But he wasn't. So your suggestion that because Nader didn't attack Kerry in 2000 that proves he wouldn't have done against Kerry what he did against Gore in 2000 if Kerry had been on the ticket is a fallacy.

And you're repeating more right wing bullshit, which was the point of my original post. Mass liberals can't win national elections???

Yes they can't. If you are perceived as a Mass liberals you can't win a national election today, except maybe under very special circustances (economic depression, for example)
That's just the reality.

As long as Democrats, which I highly doubt that you are, but as long as people on the left repeat right wing bullshit, Democrats will lose.

I agree with that. But that Mass liberals cannot win national elections is a matter of fact today. Those in redland wouldn't vote for a Dukakis or Kerry. It's stupid but rednecks are stupid people.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. Paul Wellstone would've done a MUCH better job of that than Kerry

[sandnsea]

120. Apparently

Rednecks are too stupid to vote for any liberal so we can't run one, ever. The notion that WE are too stupid to stop buying into the right wing defamation campaigns and support a Massachusetts liberal, or any other liberal, seems to just fly over some folks heads. As they say they want the Democratic Party to be more liberal, but piss on the liberal candidates. :crazy:

[AlGore-08.com]

185. Actually, if Gore had chosen Kerry, the Nader camp would have screamed

that Gore was a bigot, because he had chosen a white male instead of a woman and/or minority member. That was how they were spinning the potential running mates, including Kerry, in the weeks before Gore made his announcement.

And when Gore picked Lieberman - - the first Jewish person to run on a major party ticket - - Greens such as Michael Moore complained that Gore had not chosen a minority member as his running mate. (Even though, last time I checked, Jews were a minority in the U.S.)

Sorry, but that's what happened.

[karynnj]

65. How about next door neighbor NH

He would have also killed Cheney in the debate. Lieberman was horrible and allowed Cheney to appear much more moderate and grandfatherly than he is.

Kerry would likely have been able to subtlely pull out the real Dick Cheney who voted against school lunches and who thought Mandela was a terrorist. The Lieberman/Cheney debate helped the Bush people enormously because it stilled any concern about Cheney.

Even if it came down to FL, Kerry would have supported Gore far better than Lieberman did.

[drummo]

75. Kerry had nothing to do with NH. Just because it's a neighboring

state does not mean you have an advantage. If that logic would always apply you could say that Gore should have won Alabama because it's Tennessee's neighbor state.
Kerry won NH by 9,274 votes in 2004 because Nader was a non-factor. Without Nader Gore would have won NH, as well. Nader got 22,198 votes in 2000.

Even if Gore had won NH because of Kerry he might have lost other states at the same time because of Kerry's Massachussets liberal image, New Mexico or Iowa, both were very close in 2000. If Gore had won NH but lost either NM or Iowa he wouldn't have become president. Kerry lost both states in 2004.

You never saw Kerry debating Cheney so you cannot possibly know what it would have been like. But Cheney might very well have portrayed Kerry as another Massachussets big spender therefore reinforcing the image that Bush was creating about Gore.

Beside, who cares about the veep debate? Veep debates never made a difference in any election.

Kerry didn't support Gore in Florida more than Lieberman did. Other than a few wishy-washy comments he did nothing. Just like the other Hill Dems he let Gore down big time while the Hill Reps were rallying behind Bush.

And it's quite possible that Florida wouldn't have been close at all without Lieberman on the ticket. Kerry wouldn't have appealed to any particular group in Florida more than Gore did. But Joe, being a Jew, did.

[karynnj]

89. NH gets Boston TV

As to the debates, Liberman was simply awful - Kerry won every debate he was in at Yale and through his political career. Even Weld who was very good was not able to compete.

You say Kerry is a Massachusetts Liberal, but Cheney was further from center than Kerry ever was. Lieberman scored absolutely no points off Cheney. I realize I'm making a conjecture, but look at all the ones you've made.

I simply think Kerry would have been better echoing Gore's good points. Kerry could likely have been used on the environment, where both had very good records (as did Teresa as a private citizen). Kerry would have been a good liason to young people.

I realize that Gore intended that Liberman echo his long term moral values. That was a major issue and it's likely Bush won on it. It certainly wasn't a stupid or unreasonable choice of Gore's to try to counter it.

In fairness, it is never possible to see what would happen with the path not taken. You think Lieberman fit the "moral values" theme and was the best choice. I think that the energetic, charismatic Kerry would have done better. It's not possible to know. (If Kerry would have been picked, he could have been blamed, if they lost.) The thread was labelled Monday morning quarterbacking.

[drummo]

97. And because NH gets Boston TV therefore most voters in NH

would have voted for a Gore/Kerry ticket in 2000?
Do you have a better fallacy in your arsenal?
One doesn't follow from the other.
NH got Boston TV in 2004, as well. And Kerry barely won the state. The only reason was that Nader didn't get the 22,000+ votes he got in 2000 because many former-Nader voters wanted Bush out desperatly. That was true nationwide not just in NH.

As to the debates, Liberman was simply awful - Kerry won every debate he was in at Yale and through his political career.

Kerry never debated with Cheney so it's irrelevant how he did against other people.
Gore beat Quayle, Kemp, Perot and according to the instant polls he beat Bush in the first and third debates. But he still lost the second.
Clinton beat Bush Sr and Perot in the second debate but lost to Perot
in the first and last.
There are a lot of unknown factors which can make you "lose" or "win"
a debate. But I have no doubt that Cheney would have portrayed Kerry as a big spender liberal which certainly wouldn't have helped Gore. Moreover Gore didn't need the mess around Kerry's Vietnam record in his own campaign.

But again, veep debates don't matter. They never made any difference in any campaign. People vote for president not vice president, unless there is something really unique such as the first Jewish veep candidate in US history.

You say Kerry is a Massachusetts Liberal, but Cheney was further from center than Kerry ever was.

Cheney was even further from the center in 2004. Did it hurt him? No.
The country has more conservatives than liberals. If you are perveived as a conservative it will not hurt you as much as if you are perceived as a Mass liberal.

Lieberman scored absolutely no points off Cheney.

And there's no evidence that Kerry would have scored points off Cheney. But even he had done it people do not care about veep debates.

How many people were less likely to vote for Gore after the Cheney-Joementum debate? Do you have the data? If not you don't have a case.

Kerry could likely have been used on the environment,

And sure that's what Gore needed in 2000. He lost West Virginia because of Kyoto. He was branded as an enviromental extermist by the Reps all over the country -- expect in states where claiming that Gore was no more green than Bush was in their interest. Of course the media never went after them for this double-game. There's no reason to believe they would have done a better job if Kerry had been on the ticket.

I simply think Kerry would have been better echoing Gore's good points.

The problem for Gore was not his "points". He led in the polls on virtually every issue. The problem was that he was Clinton's veep.
He had to do something to shake that image. And picking Kerry wouldn't have helped in that regard.

Kerry would have been a good liason to young people.

Why? Since when do young people like Kerry so much? He is not exactly your hip buddy.
The reason why most voted for him was that most were against Bush and his war (fear from draft)
By the way Gore won the youth vote on his own in 2000.

You think Lieberman fit the "moral values" theme and was the best choice.

No, I don't think he was the best choice I just don't know anyone better given the requirments in 2000. But I don't know everyone in the political landscape and I'm certainly not a fan of Joementum. He betrayed Gore big time both during the Florida mess and after that. He turned against him during the corporate scandals and then he was whining because Gore didn't even call him before he endorsed Dean. Duh! Joementum never indicated in 2000 that he wanted to invade Iraq. Then in 2002 summer he started to be Bush's echo. I don't think anyone anticipated that in 2000 -- including Gore.

[bluedawg12]

19. Isn't Joe a republican?

Or does he just seem that way?

[drummo]

47. He sure was not a Rep in 2000 when Gore picked him.

For one thing he didn't want to invade Iraq in 2000.

[Captain Hilts]

20. He should have picked another vet and had camo bumper stickers.

That said, Lieberman did as good a job as he could. He held his own against Cheney.

[drummo]

48. Who cares about Vietnam vets today? Clinton dodged the draft

and it didn't hurt him.

Gore, Kerry went to Vietnam and it didn't help them.

[Texas_Kat]

60. Good lord!

Who cares about Vietnam vets today?

What an absolutely cynical, ridiculous thing to say.

Can't say touting ole' Joementum as a winning pick in 2000 and an ideal Democrat will win you many words of praise here.

For those of us who's reaction was "Joe who?" then are entitled to ask "Joe why?" now.

If Gore was solely responsible for putting that DINO on the ticket in 2000, he showed extremely poor judgement and a complete lack of 1) understanding of ole' Joe's priorities and 2) Democratic values.

[dsc]

63. It may be cynical

but go ahead and try to pretend it isn't true. Gore and Kerry were VietNam vets who lost to Bush who shirked his duty. Clinton beat two vets in both 92 and 96. The public doesn't seem to give two shits if you served or didn't.

[Texas_Kat]

80. But we're not still living in 2000 and Bill Clinton isn't prez

Where have you been for the last 4 years?

Spout this tripe to any normal crowd of voters this day and time and you'll see Democrats walk out the door as fast as Republicans.

Just because Kerry could never 'unspin' his history and Gore never emphasized being on the ground in 'Nam says more about them than the voters.

The reality is that the public DOES care.... how dare you or the poster above denigrate veterans....

[dsc]

99. Tell it to Cleland

who lost to yet another draft dodger. Sorry but people don't care. They didn't care when Clinton ran, they didn't care when Gore ran, they didn't care when Kerry ran, and they won't care in 2008. I happen to think that is incredibly sad, but it is undeniably true. If it weren't we would have had President Gore, and still have Senator Cleland.

[drummo]

101. Actually he did emphasize it in the first debate which was

watched by 60 million people. And then what? Who cared?

[drummo]

86. I do care about them. I meant that most voters do not care.

That is the sad true.

If you went there you are not more of a hero today than if you went to the National Guard to save your ass.

I don't say I agree with it I say that election results since 1992 show that for most voters Vietnam is a non-issue.

[karynnj]

69. I was completely disappointed

I expected the "witty" Lieberman to easily beat the "sour" Cheney. That didn't happen. Lieberman was a horrible debater, conceding points everywhere. I would have loved to have seen Kerry - who not only is a great debater, but would definately have been able to get under Cheney's skin and exposed the nasty Cheney - picture the snarls. Imagine sincere Kerry talking about kids and school lunches -
Also, Teresa would have been an asset, especially in PA.

Gore closed the gap as a populist, a mode Kerry is very good at too. They would have been a far better team.

[drummo]

102. Not that Kerry beat Bush after beating him in the debates

[karynnj]

109. Seeing that he was nearly 8 -10 points down

in late September after all he was slimed by the entire Republican party and the SBVT (watched by a complicit media). The debates made it close. Without the Bin Laden video he would likely have won.

He did win all 3 debates

[drummo]

112. Yes he won the debates but unltimately that didn't make the difference

in the election.

Perot won two debates in 1992 he still didn't win.

I'm not sure that Osama had such a huge impact. Bush was already leading Kerry on Iraq and terrorism. And when you had 11 states
with gay marriage amedments on the ballots you really don't need Osama
to drive the rednecks crazy.
Kerry lost because of those amedments. There wouldn't have been such a huge fundy turnout without them.

[Crunchy Frog]

121. I felt the exact same way.

Lieberman seemed like a pretty smart guy, and there seemed like so much to go after the Bush/Cheney ticket on. I really had been expecting and hoping that Lieberman would clean his clock. I was incredibly disappointed that it turned out to be more like a mutual lovefest.

I do think that Kerry would have done much better. And I also think that Cheney had more influence on that ticket than most VP candidates do because he was percieved as the competent "grownup" who would be actually calling the shots while W pretended to be President. For that reason, I think it would have helped to really bring him down a notch in the debates.

[ret5hd]

21. Monday Morning Quarterback???

I'd more likely call this "Last Season" Quarterbacking
or
"Goddamn Honey!!!, You Nearly Ran Into The Ass End Of That Car!!!......Last Week" Quarterbacking

WTF indeed.


:rofl:

[renie408]

40. Yeah, I checked the thread thinking Gore had done something

over the weekend that I missed.

[Lena inRI]

27. Gore was too accommodating to both Bill and DLC/DNC. . .

and he got in return a RUDE AWAKENING not realized until way after the 2000 coup passed.

He was STUNNED, IMHO.

Maybe he's his own man now. . .we'll see. . .wait and watch. . .

:smoke:

[drummo]

49. He has been his own man at least since he went to Vietnam.

Strange how easily people forget that at the time Clinton picked Gore Gore was already a government veteran. Those 16 years did not vanish.
If you examine Gore's congressional record it gives much more valuable info about what kind of president he would have made than if you only pay attention to those 8 years in the White House.

He has been a loner since he was a little kid. Being in the Clinton administration did not change that.

[AlphaCat]

29. I sure wondered that too!

They seem so...different...never seemed like they went together, clicked, you know? Now, I never see them even exchange a WORD. What WAS in Al's mind when he picked him?

[jillan]

30. Gore was known as a real liberal - OH MY! and Lieberman

was probably suppose to bring in the moderates?

[drummo]

50. No, Gore in 2000 was known as a moderate. He was more

in the center in the 90s than either Hillary or Bill.

Not that he has changed since 2000. He is still that damn competent technocrat he was in the 90s, 80s and 70s.

[6th Borough]

53. Bill Bradley was viewed as the more liberal candidate during the primaries

/EOM

[karynnj]

71. Actually Gore was not a liberal while in the Senate

He was a moderate on almost all issues - which doesn't make him bad. He was also representing Tennessesee, which is not Mass.

[drummo]

103. Right. And he was not a liberal while he was in the White House, either.

Moreover he is not a liberal today.

[Adelante]

156. So what is he today?

What is his position in 2005 on Iraq and troop withdrawal?

If he is not a liberal, what is he?

[drummo]

161. First and foremost a technocrat as he always has been.

Why? People necessarly have to belong to some kind of narrow ideological category? Gore has never been an ideologue, left or right.
Thus confusing a lot of simplistic minds who are obsessed with labels.

As for Iraq he obiviously cannot give you an exit plan since he doesn't have access to necessary and timely on-the-ground info.
And in such a rapidly changing crisis situation only a fool would propose a nicely sounding but totally useless plan.
And whatever he would propose it wouldn't be implemented anyway so what would be the point of it?
Finally, this war is lost so no matter what we do from now it will be bad. And by 2008 this may very well be over, anyway.

[nvliberal]

32. Lieberman was popular in Florida.

I wish people would knock off the nonsense that if Gore would have picked Edwards (the other choice on Gore's shortlist) or anybody else, Gore would have swung the election, an election he WON, by the way.

The fascists were going to steal it, no matter the cost.

[Samantha]

33. The Clintons and the Liebermans are great friends

I am sure it was Bill Clinton who advised Gore to pick Joe Lieberman. I know Kerry was also on the short list, but was eliminated over a perceived incident with a woman. Gore did not want even the hint of a scandal on his ticket.

So Gore was convinced Lieberman would carry Florida for him (which he did) and that it would be a pick of a historic nature (which it was). Gore's choice of his second was not the problem in the election. Lieberman's conduct following the Bush* theft of the election IS a problem. I do not think he and Gore are on the same terms they used to be.

[drummo]

51. No, Clinton had no idea that Gore wanted to pick Joe.

Gore made the decision during the impeachment, not in 2000. And Gore is not the guy who will tell you or anyone else (in this case Clinton) what's on his mind before he actually makes the decision.

Remember that not even his closest friends knew he was going to endorse Dean or that he would not run in 2004. He is a very private person.

[Samantha]

54. I didn't say Gore told Clinton once the decision was made

I remember when Gore was going through this process and there were about 4 names on the list. Andrea Mitchell was the one who commented about Lieberman's closeness to the Clintons, as opposed to the Gores. The fact that Lieberman had such a clean reputation, publicly censored Bill Clinton for his affair, was Jewish and could carry Florida, coupled with the fact the rest were eliminated for one reason or another, gave Joe the edge. But it was the Clintons who originally talked him up to Gore.

[drummo]

58. How can you remember that?

Gore was going through this process in 1998. Not 2000. And noone knew that at the time. You cannot remember that. He kept it in secret because he didn't want to suggest that he thought Clinton could be removed from office.

But it was the Clintons who originally talked him up to Gore.

That's hogwash. Why would Clinton talk to Gore in 1998, during his impeachment trial, about who he should pick as his veep if he is removed from office? Clinton was sure all along that he would survive. And he wouldn't have suggested to Gore, of all people, that hey if I am dead pick Joe because I like him. Especially not after Lieberman moral tirade against Clinton on the Senate floor.

Andrea Mitchell is just another media speculator who presents her personal opinion as if it was fact. She didn't know what she was talking about. She couldn't possibly have access to Gore in 1998 and she couldn't possibly knew what Gore was thinking about a potentional veep pick if Clinton was going to be removed.

[Samantha]

115. I followed election 2000 for four hours a day for over two years

and have read several books on the subject. Why don't you go to your political church, and I will go to mine.

It was very well known that Clinton was the Lieberman fan -- not Gore. I think if you simply observe the nature of their relationship since the election, you have to come to the conclusion they are not political soulmates.

I do remember the list very well. I remember when Edwards was eliminated. I remember when Kerry was eliminated. Lieberman got the nod because he was the only one not eliminated. And he was on that list because Clinton suggested it would be a historic choice and one that would carry Florida.

[drummo]

117. But Gore did not pick Joe in 2000. He picked him in 1998 during

impeachment.

Apparently you didn't read one book which elaborates about that.
Divided we Stand by Roger Simon

And when was Clinton a bigger "fan" of Joe than Gore?
In 1998, after Joe's Clinton-bashing speech?
Hard to believe.

I think if you simply observe the nature of their relationship since the election, you have to come to the conclusion they are not political soulmates.

Since Gore was as much of a centrist as Clinton it's hard to see how
Clinton would have been politically closer to Joe than Gore in 2000.

Since 2000, however, Joe has done some things, primarly supporting Bush's invasion, which alienated the two from each other. But there was no Iraq war in 1998 or 2000. There was no major policy disagreement between Lieberman and Gore in 2000. Certainly no bigger than between Clinton and Lieberman.

I do remember the list very well. I remember when Edwards was eliminated. I remember when Kerry was eliminated. Lieberman got the nod because he was the only one not eliminated.

Yeah he was not elimintated because he was a Dem who was percieved as moral and who criticized Clinton's actions with Monica.

And he was on that list because Clinton suggested it would be a historic choice and one that would carry Florida.

Then how do you explain that long before that list was even made
Gore already picked Lieberman as his veep, in case Clinton would be removed from office?

And why do you think that Gore, who did not accept any advise from Clinton in 2000 with regard to his campaign, would have picked Joe just because Clinton liked him so much?
And what communication between Clinton and Gore or anyone on Gore's stuff confirm your account? Memo? Phone call? Personal conversation?
What? When and how did Clinton advise Gore to pick Lieberman?

[Eric J in MN]

34. Joe Lieberman had criticized Bill Clinton over Monica,

and Gore figured that putting him on the ticket would prove to voters that he would be faithful to his wife.

It was a bad move. No one was worried about that.

[drummo]

52. It was not just about fidelity. It was also about character.

Contrary to your clain millions of voters cared about character in 2000.
In fact according to the exist polls character was picked by most voters as their top concern.

[AJH032]

133. Exactly

Gore chose Lieberman because Lieberman was one of the few (possibly the only) Democratic senators to criticize Clinton during the impeachment process. Gore's selection of Lieberman was strictly to distance himself from Clinton.

[karynnj]

171. There were several Senators who

when explaining their votes on impeachment on the Senate floor - had a preface saying that Clinton's actions were wrong .... but the charges (even perjury re sex) didn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

What you are forgetting is that the difference in level of President intern is such that it is counter to all the workplace harrassment work done primarly by Democrats. I think it offended the vast majority of Democrats. To get to the official Senate record, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r109query.html Chose the 106 session and use the word impeachment. (If you want a specific Senator - select him/her in the next step.) The Jan 12 record has several of the Senators' comments. They were pretty tough on Clinton - but felt it didn't tise to the level to justify convicting him.


Here's part of Kerry's:
The President lied. The President obstructed justice. No one made him behave as he did. And yes, you're right. The President behaved without common sense, without courage, and without honor, but we are required to measure the totality of this case. We must measure how political this may have been; whether process was absurd; whether the totality of what the President did meets the constitutional threshold set by the Founding Fathers.

We must decide whether the removal of the President is proportional to the offense and we must remember that proportionality, fairness, rule of law--they must be applied not just to convict, but also to defend--to balance the equities.

Senator Lautenberg said:
As I reflect on the impeachment proceedings, I think first of the range of emotions I have felt. From the moment I realized that the President had engaged in this shameful relationship, I have struggled with my thoughts.

I was angry, of course. I was ashamed for the President, a talented man--someone I consider a friend. How could he risk so much with his disgraceful behavior?

And I was saddened. I do not know how the President will reconcile himself to his family. I could imagine the embarrassment and the humiliation of the First Lady and his daughter Chelsea. I pitied them as they felt the searing glow of the public spotlight.

Bob Kerrey:
Nebraskans, including me, are angry about the President's behavior. We find it deplorable on every level. It has permanently and deservedly marred his place in history. But impeachment is not about punishing an individual; it is about protecting the country. We punish a President who behaves immorally, lies and otherwise lacks the character we demand in public office with our votes. Presidents are also subject to criminal prosecution when they leave office.

Impeachment must be reserved for extreme situations involving crimes against the state. Why? Because the founders of our country and the framers of our Constitution correctly placed stability of the republic as their paramount concern. They did not want Congress to be able to easily remove a popularly elected President. They made clear they intended a decision to impeach to be used to protect the nation against only the highest of crimes.

Durbin:
First, let me stipulate the obvious. The personal conduct of this President has been disgraceful and dishonorable. He has brought shame on himself and his Presidency. No one--not any Senator in this Chamber nor any person in this country--will look at this President in the same way again.

I have known Bill Clinton for 35 years. I remember him as a popular student when we both attended Georgetown. And I know despite all of the talk about ``compartmentalization'' that this man has suffered the greatest humiliation of any President in our history. I hope his marriage and his family can survive it.

But our job is not to judge Bill Clinton as a person, a husband, a father. Our responsibility under the Constitution is to judge Bill Clinton as a President, not whether he should be an object of scorn but whether he should be removed from office.

Did William Jefferson Clinton commit perjury or obstruct justice, and for these acts should he be removed from office?

When this trial began I believed that President Clinton's only refuge was in a strict reading of ``high crimes and misdemeanors''--that James Madison, George Mason and Alexander Hamilton would have to serve as his defense team and save this President from removal.

even Kennedy:
President Clinton's behavior was wrong. All of us condemn it. None of us condones it. He failed to tell the truth about it, and he misled the country for many months. But nothing he did rises to the high constitutional standard required for impeachment and removal of a President from office

[drummo]

35. Clinton's BJ and lies

That's why Joementum was picked. Nothing more nothing less.

[peacetalksforall]

56. He had very bad outside advisors. I don't want to include his family.

I'm only guessing about it all. How would we know. But, look at the positions and pussy footing around of Frum and Donna and the positions McAulliffe took.

Did Gore let the DLC and DNC run free?

They all did a HORRIBLE job by not putting down the right wing lies accusing Gore of being a liar. Their accusation, some fund raising questions, and his physical appearance and clothes were all they had to go on. His advisors were so pitifully weak in relation to the advice and his defense, therefore, they will forever be suspect for me. It was despicable.

I remember being happy about Joe. I thought it was thrilling that the religion line had been broken once again. Little did I know what a lousy Dem Joe was (or would become).

[drummo]

64. Who were those "very bad outside advisors."?

Everybody just talks about those mysterious "advisors" and "handlers"
without ever naming them or proving that Gore indeed listened to them and didn't make his decisions on his own.

From didn't like Gore's populist campaign. He wasn't even on Gore's campaign stuff and there is no evidence that Gore even cared about what From was thinking. Certainly From's post-election Gore bashing does not indicate that Gore took From's opinion seriously during his campaign. In fact I think he didn't give a damn about it.

As for Donna Brazile, she was not an advisor but the campaign manager. She was responsible for the "technical" issues of the campaign not the tactics or strategy let alone for Gore's proposals or what he should say on the campaign trail.
Do you have evidence that Gore said or did anything during the campaign just because Brazile told him to say and do those things?
Do you know the exact nature of Brazile's influence over Gore's decisions? If not, how can you be so sure that Gore got "bad advise" from her?

[peacetalksforall]

77. You're right in questioning me. I don't know. I do know that the two I

mention were the ones who appear to have been invited to appear on MSM the most along with McAulliffe and they appeared to speak for him or you can say that they appeared to speak with authority.

I'm not sure how a Campaign Manager can get by without giving advice or 'feedback'. You might be saying that she only took directions without a voice back to him?

I do need to do more reading. However, it's difficult to go backwards to read other people's analysis of the campaign when our country is being destroyed around us. So perhaps I should keep my fingers quiet until I learn more. But, here I go again......

Frum and Brazile have disappointed me greatly since then = I have a big problem with Dems who are as conciliatory to the right wing when they appear before the country on tv. They always seem to waste the opportunity. Sometimes, I've even had the thought that they might think that is their only ticket to appearing on tv.

Our country is in trouble. There is no doubt in my mind about that statement. Gore got many raw deals. From the Clinton legacy to the horrible crime perpetrated by the MSM. And more. He didn't deserve any of them, imo.

I will never forget the MSM = I have a list of the names of those whose mouths were moving with full smirks - I don't care if they morph to a point where they speak against Bush today. They will always be character assassinators to me. They will never be forgiven by me, no matter how much they whine about Bush. They did their damage and contributed to the downfall of this country.

Frum and Brazile never fight them.

[drummo]

104. Are you talking about Al From or Bob Schrum?

I don't know about a Dem with the name Frum speaking for Gore during the campaign.

This is Bob Schrum. Is this the guy you are talking about?



He indeed was often called "a senior advisor" of Gore but his role is not clear to me in individual decisions. And that's my problem with this oft-repeated comment that Gore listened to much to his "handlers".
Noone can know whether he listened to Schrum at all let alone too much. Gore had a tendecy to hire political hacks as a routine. He did it like a machine without any enthusiasm. (Who can wonder?)
But nothing indicates to me that , for example, Gore ran as a populist because of what Schrum said. Or that he decided to say anything during the campaign because of Schum's advise.
Same thing with Donna Brazile. One thing why these "advisors" may have been so uninterested in Gore's success might very well have been the fact that Gore never took them seriously unlike his policy advisors.

One essay about Gore in the Wapo (Al Gore as President:
Politics Vs. Policy by John Harris) put it this way:

Why would Gore's relationships in the political sphere be so tumultuous, while his relationships in the policy sphere—with Fuerth, who began tutoring Gore on arms control in the early '80s, as well as with domestic policy aides such as Simon and Elaine Kamarck--be steady?

"Leon or Elaine or Greg Simon are linked to him intellectually, and he respects them," said one former Gore aide. "His view is that you can always find more political hacks."

Of course, one of Gore's political advisor rejects that.
Quinn, a political aide who has remained close to Gore over the years, even though he is only an informal adviser to the 2000 campaign, rejects this theory. "For this campaign he needed to reach out to a broader group of people than he's ever been close to before—and I think he's been right to do that," he said. "All of us who've been with him are still with him; he's simply expanded the table."


Our country is in trouble. There is no doubt in my mind about that statement. Gore got many raw deals. From the Clinton legacy to the horrible crime perpetrated by the MSM. And more. He didn't deserve any of them, imo.

Couldn't agree more. And I dislike both Brazile and Schrum. Mostly because they didn't care about the 2000 campaign. For them it was just another job. They got their money and that was it for them. Whether Bush would become president didn't seem to bother them.

[Texas_Kat]

83. I've seen you post this question before.

If the staff 'handlers' weren't at fault, then you're saying that awful campaign was all Al's doing? What 'populist' campaign? Gore may have become a populist during his recent absence from politics (pre-Dean endorsement) but he certainly wasn't a populist in 2000.

I've been wondering why every where the subject comes up, there you are defending his 'handlers'.

Were you perhaps one of them?

For a list, Google is your friend.....

[drummo]

107. It was not an awful campaign. That's spin.

You do not come up in the polls by 20% if you run an awful campaign.
You lose by a landslide if you run and awful campaign, instead of winning both the electoral college and the popular voter. (Of course you can still be robbed no matter how good your campaign is. But isn't Mugabe the president of Zimbabwe? If that can happen there sure it can happen here.)

And when you are right on almost everything that's a pretty good campaign. Unless you think that a prez campaign is mere theater where charming the hell out of people is more important than understanding governance and public matters.

What populist campaign? The one that the DLC bashed so much.
Read this:

TURNING A WIN INTO A DRAW
by Mark J. Penn
Gore's populist message worked well with the Democratic base, but fell far short with swing voters who could have pushed him over the top.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2922

And by the way where were you in 2000? In another universe I guess.
Gore has been a populist ever since he ran for Congress in 1976.
His father was a populist, almost the entire Gore family line going back to reconstruction was populist -- as Gore Vidal noted in an interview (he says he is Al's cousin). You are dead wrong if you think this is a new thing. It's as old as it gets.

I'm not defending his handlers. I just haven't seen any evidence that Gore did and said what he did and said just because those "handlers" -- whom even you don't indentify -- told him to do and say those things.

Why bother with Google? Gimme that list if you know them so well. If you are so judgmental you sure have to know who they are. And tell me what advise they gave to him. And then tell me what Gore's reaction was.

[Texas_Kat]

118. Most of the 'handlers' are still very active in Democratic politics

and many of them were involved in the 04 campaign. Typical political campaign gypsies with their hands out.... I know who they were, and like most teachers, I believe the best way to learn something is for you to look it up yourself.

But here's a snip from the Nation that addresses both Gore's 'populism' and a 'handler':

Moreover, consider the populism Gore served up: Medicare drug benefits, a patients' bill of rights (for those who already have health coverage), modest campaign finance reform that bans but one form of special-interest contribution, more healthcare coverage for uninsured children (but not adults), tax cuts for college tuition, protecting Social Security from Wall Street. That's about it. No end to corporate welfare. No crusade against the remaining tax advantages for corporations. No paid family and medical leave. No law mandating vacations for workers. No effort to challenge the energy and telecom monopolies. No support for raising the minimum wage to a living wage. No move against Pentagon pork. (Gore is for boosting military spending.) No extensive overhaul of the campaign finance system. No plan for universal healthcare coverage.

Gore's populist-tinged proposals are not unimportant. But his speech was, at best, populism-lite: "Big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs. Sometimes you have to be willing to stand up and say no , so families can have a better life." What of the cable companies, the banks, insurance companies, securities firms, the military contractors, the agricultural giants, the telecom biggies, the National Association of Manufacturers, the credit-card cartel, the automakers, the apparel industry? And Gore's populism may be but his latest phase. Over the years, there's been Gore the high-tech Democrat, Gore the hawkish Democrat, Gore the green Democrat, Gore the attack-dog Democrat, Gore the "practical idealism" Democrat. Anytime Gore issues a bold pronouncement involving himself, one has to ask, how long will this last?

The early signs were not encouraging. Shortly after the convention, Douglas Hattaway, a Gore spokesman, explained why Gore could perform strongly in the South: "Al Gore is a Southern New Democrat who has long favored a strong defense, welfare reform, fiscal responsibility and values like that." Hattaway apparently did not feel compelled to cite Gore's desire to combat evil corporate interests. And an unnamed senior Gore adviser told the Los Angeles Times that once Gore's populist shtick shores up his standing among white working-class women, he can adopt a more celebratory economic message: "He is going to be a pro-business, pro-growth, pro-technology Democrat." Just days out of the convention Gore's spinners were no longer promoting his populism.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000904/corn

Hon, I've been around politics long enough to know good campaigns from bad campaigns.... Gore's 2000 campaign was poorly handled.

[drummo]

128. Name those handlers our your entire theory has not legs.

Just because you have been " around politics long enough" does not mean that you understand the political dynamics of the country during a particular time period. In fact most political junkies pretend that they know all the answers while almost never provide actual data to support their theories. You are doing just that now.

Gore's campaign was "handled" by Gore himself. If you can't name names and can't prove that they in fact influenced Gore's decisions you don't have a case.

The Nation's spin means what? This is a liberal paper which was not particularly friendly toward Gore either during or after the campaign.
For them nothing is populist enough that is not far-left Dukakis-style big spending.
Why should anyone take their account seriously?
Gore's campaign was too populist for the DLC, for sure.
So which one tells the truth?

And that idiocy about the "changing Al" is over the top. Why would one rule out the other? Right-wingers create caricatures all the time.
Now you have at least one left-wing scribe doing the same.
Gore was green, high-tech, hawkish, populist, pragmatic, idealist at the same time. But that may be too compicated for an ultra-political outlet like the Nation which prefers people who can be described in two or three words and that's it.

Doug Hatthaway was Gore's spokesman not his advisor. That unnamed advisor is not good enough. Name him or her and prove that what he said was indeed what Gore wanted to do.

[Texas_Kat]

148. Why do you hate Al Gore? N/T

[drummo]

151. Who hate Al Gore?

If you haven't noticed I've been defending him against these
unsubstantiated charges that he was "handled" by others.
That's an MSM spin to belittle him. If someone is "handled" by others that person cannot make decisions on his own. The whole purpose of that spin was to create the perception that Gore was weak
and not comfortable in his own skin.

Gore was never "handled" by anyone. His decisions was made by him noone else. And I've seen no evidence thus far that anything he said or did was a result of advise from those so-called "handlers".

[Hippo_Tron]

94. Campaign manager does both tasks in reality

Although the job title sounds like a "logistics" job, campaign manager is like being the candidate's chief of staff. They are responsible for running the campaign as well as being a principle advisor on strategy.

[drummo]

108. That's a general characterization. But the question is whether

in this particular case Donna Brazile gave advise to Gore which determined what Gore said or did or not.

If in this case Brazile was merely a logistical guru then I don't see any reason to say that she was Gore's "handler" during the campaign.

I don't know what she did, but apparently nor do those who are so quick to blame Gore for listening too much to his "handlers".

[radio4progressives]

61. I understood that Lieberman was chosen by the DLC (not Gore)

They were the people handling and managing the nomination package and campaign, or so I understood at the time.

sure there was all that bruhaha around Gore trying to distance himself from Clinton as much as it was possible which ticked off Clinton but that doesn't mean they were'nt managing everything behind the scenes.

Could be wrong. But it pretty much makes sense to me.

By the way, Senator Graham has some splainin' to do regarding his breakfast meeting with Porter Goss and Pakistani ISI chief on the morning of 9/11 and a certain wire transfer with someone known as Mohammad Atta.

So many Atta's and Zarkawi's so little time to keep up with it all.

But it begs to be asked how many lives these operatives can be allowed to live before the public has to demand to know how it is that these "terrorists" be killed one day, captured the next and "plotting" with al Queda in Germany on the third, get killed again on the fourth day and start all over again.

and the media keeps pumping it out like good little brown shirts that they are.

but i digress...

[peacetalksforall]

78. Don't stop - repeat what you said again in another thread. You're on

the right track, imo.

[drummo]

110. Joementum was picked by Gore in 1998 not in 2000. The DLC

had nothing to do with that.

For one thing the DLC didn't want Gore to separate himself from Clinton. Their position was that those who cared about BJ and lies and impeachment wouldn't have voted for Gore anyway. So for Gore there was nothing to lose by "using Clinton" -- whatever that phrase meant.

And Gore picked Joe because he badly needed a break from Clinton.
The DLC didn't like it at all. After the Supreme 5 decision they were quick to blame Gore for rejecting Clinton.

[TheFarseer]

91. I had never heard of Joe Lieberman at the time

I decided who to vote for during one of the debates, so I could have voted either way, and I liked Joe. He was saying all the right things to make me want to vote for that ticket. Not saying he was the best VP possible, but he made me more likely to vote Gore.

I'm sorry to say, because I know many DUers like him, but Bob Graham might have hurt him because he comes off as one step away from Admiral Stockdale on the loony-toon meter.

[Hippo_Tron]

93. Paul Wellstone would've been a far superior pick

Wellstone in particular would have energized the dem base and gotten the Jewish vote, which was the intention with Lieberman. How many people would've voted for Ralph Nader when instead they could've voted to put Paul Wellstone a heartbeat away from the presidency?

[dsc]

100. He had MS

and given the West Wing storyline that would have been a non starter.

[Hippo_Tron]

180. He would've been running for VP, not POTUS

If he had been running for President, it would've been a big deal. If anybody had raised shit about his health, they could've raised shit about Dick Cheney's health.

[drummo]

111. How is it that even after 2004 Dems still say energizing the base

is the key to win national elections?

The Dem base is not big enough. That's the reailty.

Bush (yes Bush not Kerry) energized the Dem base more than anyone else before and what happened?

You need people in the middle. And you will not get that with a hard-core liberal veep candidate like Wellstone.

[Adelante]

160. "The Dem base is not big enough. That's the reailty."

Finally. Something I agree with.

[Hippo_Tron]

181. You forget that only certain people actually care about the VP

And one of those groups is a party's base. Nobody else truly gives a shit about who the VP is, except for the VP's home state. And while the base may have been energized in 2004, it certainly wasn't in 2000, considering the votes that Nader got.

Why do you think that Bush put Cheney on the ticket? He did it so he could run to the center while Cheney appealed to the far right.

[drummo]

201. I don't forget that. I think it's unproven

And one of those groups is a party's base.

And the others? Name them. And prove it that Gore lost more liberal votes just because of Joe than he won non-liberals votes because of Joe.
Untimately it's not the base that matters but the electorate as a whole. You cannot win a national election without winning swin-voters. The Dem base is simply not big enough.

Ultimately, given that Nader was in the race and conservative Dems didn't like Gore's populism and pro-choice, pro-gun control position and/or Clinton's immoral conduct, lies and believed Gore too was a liar, Gore did pretty well among Democrats.
Nader got 2% and that would have been enough to beat the cheaters. (Or not, who knows) But is there any evidence that those 2% of Dems wouldn't have voted for Gore anyway not matter his running mate and that he wouldn't have lost 2% of Reps or 2% of Indies if he had picked someone else, for example Kerry?

All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader

Democrat 39 % 86 % 11 % 0% 2 %
Republican 35 % 8 % 91 % 0 % 1 %
Independent 27 % 45 % 47 % 1 % 6 %


http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

And while the base may have been energized in 2004, it certainly wasn't in 2000, considering the votes that Nader got.

Actually in 2000 more Dems voted than Reps.
But blame the base -- whoever they were in that base -- for being disinterested not Joe.
The voters decide what they think not Joe. Only they can energize themselves. In 2004 they were energized because they were scared to death from the prospect of 4 more Bush years. If they didn't have the same fear in 2000 they were shortsighted and stupid. And what does that have to do with Joe or anyone else other than the liberals themselves?

In 2000 if liberals believed that Gore was like Bush that's their fault not Joe's. Certainly they realized by 2004 how dead wrong they were.

Liberals had all kind of problems with Clinton's centrism (NAFTA, Telecom Bill, welfare reform etc) and they believed Gore would be just the same.
Gore is in fact not a liberal but he is not a conservative, either.
If it was not good enough for them I say they deserved what they got from Bush.

[0007]

96. I don't know what Gore was thinking when he decided to back the

Miami Cubans on the Elian Gonzalez fiasco. I went out and fought for this guy, and then he remained silent after the 2000 election.

Hasta la Vista, Mr. Gore.

[drummo]

113. He didn't back Miami Cubans he backed the idea that this was

a family matter and should be decided in a family court. With which I agreed, by the way.

It was not Gore who politicized that stupid case. And that he broke with the Clinton administration just to pander to the Cubans in Miami is just another urban legend about him, rigth along with Love Story, Love Canal, Internet etc. For him it was a family issue nothing more nothing less. And you and everybody else should have treated as that.
We only helped Castro by spinning the case as a Castro vs. Miami Cubans issue.

And what did he do after 2000? Got a break.
He fought harder during those 36 days than you did.
I wonder what you would have done if a bunch of right-wing thugs had been screaming "Get out of Cheney's house" for weeks in front of your house. I guess you would have gone crazy.

Gore didn't have any option after the SC decision. It was over. What should he have done? Call for revolution? Most people wanted him to shut up and go away.
When he spoke out against Bush in Florida in 2002 80% said he should not do it. 80%! This was still the post 9/11 pseudo-patriotic "don't hurt great leader Bush" environment.
And he still went to Florida and gave an excellent speech picking Bush's domestic agenda apart.
When he spoke out against Bush's push for the IWR his favorable rating went down to 19%! But he still continued to spoke out against the IWR.
So don't tell me he gave up.

[Crunchy Frog]

123. I was following the Elian Gonzales case very closely at the time

and my understanding was that family courts do not have jurisdiction over cases of that nature. In any event, great uncles and second cousins have no more legal standing than complete strangers in matters of custody.

[drummo]

129. Well that's exactly the point. Gore disagreed with the opinion

that "family courts did not have jurisdiction over cases of that nature". So did I.
If the court has decided that " great uncles and second cousins have no more legal standing than complete strangers in matters of custody."
in this particular case then that would have been it. Elian would have been sent back anyway. But still it would have been done within the law and within the family instead on the geopolitical scene.
That was simply insane and the Miami Cubans wanted that way.

Remember that Gore never said that Elian should stay in the US. He said the court should decide and if it decides that the boy cannot be taken into custody by relatives then that would have been it. He would have been sent back to his father. Why did this became a political issue at all? Because the idiots in Miami wanted just that, that's why.

And he also knew that his decision would hurt him politically.
Do you really think he didn't watch the polls?
More than 65% of Americans wanted to send Elian back to Cuba. Why would a presidential candidate go against such a strong wind, and lose voters natiowide, just to win a few voters in one state which otherwise back then was solidly in Bush's colum?
Originally, when this whole Elian madness occured, Florida wasn't even on the radar of Gore. That came later in the campaign after he saw trouble in states like WV, TN and AR.

[Crunchy Frog]

131. I found this quote from Charlie Rangel.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL, (D) New York: I'm terribly disappointed in the Vice President. He should know better. You just can't pick and choose with the immigration law -- to have a local court, a family court, to interpret immigration law would be wrong, and that's why the federal court has jurisdiction. Now, to change the law to allow the family court to determine custody, my God, we have hundreds of Haitian kids and kids from the Dominican Republic that we would love to bring to these courts. And I tell you, we can do mischief with a whole lot of exceptions to the immigration law. We have to be a country of laws. The immigration laws help some and hurt others. But it's abundantly clear that in a political appeal that's being made to the Cuban-Americans in Miami, that Castro is making a political circus out of this in Havana, and it's not in the boy's best interest. It's clear, the boy's father is surviving. The law says the kid should be with his surviving parent, and he should be sent to Cuba. If it was any other country, we wouldn't have this problem. But it's Cuba, and Cuba is unfortunately treated differently. We wouldn't even have the embargo against this country if it wasn't for the Cuban-American political interest in Miami. It's a sad case, and it doesn't do well for Elian Gonzalez.

My overwhelming impression at the time was that Gore was willing to throw away basic principles of family law just to pander to a handful of lunatics who were never going to vote for him anyway. If he knew the decison would hurt him politically, then it shows doubly bad judgement on his part, and if Florida wasn't on his political radar screen at that point, it sure as hell should have been.

In any case. That little stunt of his ended up costing him my vote. I doubt that I'm the only one who could say that too.

[drummo]

137. Bull. Why would he have pandered to a few nuts

in a state which at the time was solidly in Bush's column and wasn't even Gore's target state?
Why would he have risked losing voters natiowide (remember this was at the time more than 65% supported sending Elian back to Cuba) just to get a few votes in a state which he didn't even want to contest?


Rangel can of course say whatever he wants. Gore simply disagreed with him. Laws are not set in stone and are subject to interpretation.
But to say that Gore had a differing opinion was proof that he just wanted to pander to those few Miami Cubans is pure spin and doesn't make any sense in light of the circumstances of that time.

If he knew the decison would hurt him politically, then it shows doubly bad judgement on his part, and if Florida wasn't on his political radar screen at that point, it sure as hell should have been.

Sure. Sometimes people accuse him of not speaking his mind of being too tactical.
And sometimes the same people accuse him of being not enough tactical instead of just speaking his mind.
You can't have it both ways.
Not everything is politics. Especailly not for Gore who hates politics and loves policy.
He didn't care whether it would hurt him politically or not. In any case it was very early in the campaign and he could afford it. He was not alone with his position there were others who thought that would be the best solution. If they could say it why couldn't Gore? Just because he was a prez candidate?
If I were running I wouldn't hide my opinion either just because it may anger someone somewhere.

and if Florida wasn't on his political radar screen at that point, it sure as hell should have been.

Why? At that time there was no clear sign that AR, WV and TN would slip away. And Florida was a solid read state. Almost as Texas. Bush was ahead by double digits. It wouldn't have made much sense to waste time and money for such a state so early in the campaign when other states looked much better.

That little stunt of his ended up costing him my vote.

It was not a stunt. Gore is a serious man who takes family issues particularly seriously. Clinton have stunts. Bush have stunts.
Gore doesn't have stunts on matters like this.

And if you voted for Nader just because of that, then exuse me you are not quite reasonable. If anything the whole issue was not as relevant as many of the other issues that Gore was talking about during his campaign.
You knee-jerk reaction reminds me of the voters who didn't vote for Gore because of those warning labels on CD. Duh! Never a bigger problem for those assholes.

[Crunchy Frog]

141. You and I are going to have to agree to disagree,

even though you don't seem the type who is much able to tolerate disagreement from others.

Gore's response to this case, for me, was about more than just this one little boy. It spoke to what appeared to me to be a lack of principles as well as extremely poor political judgement. You disagree with me. Fine. You can argue with me until you're blue in the face and it still isn't going to change my mind. I'm too stupid, knee-jerk, and irrational, anyway for it to really be worth your time trying to convince.

[drummo]

146. What lack of principles? He had his own principles just like you.

Just because they differed from yours does not mean they were not principles.

And it had nothing to do with politics. That's spin.
You gave no evidence whatsoever that Gore said what he said because he hoped he would have a better chance to win Florida or that Gore even cared about potentional political implications.

Why should he have thought about politics in this case?
What do you mix politics into this at all?

But sure there are a lot of people who bash him if he speaks his mind and bash him if he calculates. Doomed if he does doomed if he doesn't.


I'm too stupid, knee-jerk, and irrational, anyway for it to really be worth your time trying to convince.

Based on what you've said so far it's hard to see otherwise.

[Adelante]

162. Very poor judgment

I voted Gore, not Nader, but it was in spite of this and it was tough. I liked Gore a whole lot better before he ran than while he was running.

[drummo]

166. The Elian stuff was really damn important. It was a joke.

Why was it poor judgment?

[Adelante]

174. Important? A joke?

Which are you saying?

Yes, I think Gore's stance on Elian showed poor judgment, because absent abuse, a child belongs with its parent. The only explanation for his stance is that he measured the right wing spin, fell for it and took somewhere in the safer middle. But then I think Gore showed poor judgment the whole way, including distancing his campaign from Clinton and from African Americans, including choosing Lieberman, and including not standing with the Congressional Black Caucus on the confirmation. And although you may call Barbara Boxer a liar, I believe her when she says Gore convinced her not to stand with the CBC that day in the Senate.

You see it differently, I already know, so you needn't repeat yourself. We will never agree on these points. I will support Gore if he is the 2008 nominee, but it won't mean I have forgotten or forgiven, because I don't. I admired him before he ran in 2000, and although he won the popular vote, he did not win a wide enough mandate to overcome the manipulation. That was his fault. As you say, he made his own decisions and he is responsible for his actions, not the DLC, not the "handlers" and not the voters.

[drummo]

206. Have you ever heard about sarcasm?

Read again the whole headline:

The Elian stuff was really damn important. It was a joke.


Yes, I think Gore's stance on Elian showed poor judgment, because absent abuse, a child belongs with its parent.

And when did Gore say that he doesn't?
The court would have ruled in favor of the father -- in all likelihood.
And Gore said that the best would be to resolve the issue within the family.
You promote the fallacy that just because Gore favored to send the case to a family court he obviously also thought Elian does not belong with his father. Nonsense. The second does not follow from the first.

The problem was that this case was not about the child or the father for right-wingers and left-wingers alike. For them it was about US policy toward Cuba and they pretended that they in fact cared about the kid. Bull. The RW cared about the Miami Cuban votes and their anti-Castro obsession and the left cared about bashing the right for their anti-Castro obsession and the sanction policy.

BTW personally I disagree that a kid always belong to the father, absent abuse. If the conditions for the kid are better elsewhere and if the kid would prefer to live with others the father should have no right to force him/her to live with him. I don't say that this was the case with Elian, this is just about the issue in general.

The only explanation for his stance is that he measured the right wing spin, fell for it and took somewhere in the safer middle.

No, that's not the only explanation. In fact that was not Gore's own explanation but sure you know it better since you can read Gore's mind.
You repeat media spin.
Why would Gore, of all people, fell for RW spin?
You assume that Gore was a complete idiot who didn't watched the polls which showed the vast majority of American's wanted Elian to go back to Cuba.

But then I think Gore showed poor judgment the whole way, including distancing his campaign from Clinton and from African Americans, including choosing Lieberman, and including not standing with the Congressional Black Caucus on the confirmation.

You can think whatever you want, but just because you like Clinton does not mean that most voters liked him in 2000. In fact they didn't.
Your judgment is colored by your emotional attachment to Clinton.
Gore's was not. He knew he had to distance himself from Bill if he wanted to win -- there is actually evidence for that in the polls taken in 2000.

Read this debate on KOS.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/25/19349/8314
Lando thought the same. Gore was stupid to distance himself from Clinton because Clinton was such a big winner in 2000. Then stardate showed him polls and articles which quoted members of the Bush team talking about their "link Gore to Clinton" strategy and then lando changed his mind, and stopped blaming Gore for making that decision.

He won a larger % of African-American vote than Clinton. How does that show poor jugdment is beyond me but sure you know it better.

As for picking Lieberman it was a good way to separate himself from Clinton which he absolutely had to do if he wanted to win (ask Karl Rove about that who desperately wanted to link Gore to CLinton, and after the convention desperately re-link Gore to Clinton)

What do you mean " standing with the Congressional Black Caucus on the confirmation"? What exactly should he have done that would have made sense and was legal at the same time? He was not a Senator. He couldn't sign that petition. He had to follow the rules just like everybody else in this country. And even if he could have it wouldn't have made a damn difference because at the end the House would have picked Bush as president. He understood that you didn't. It seems to me there are problems with your judgment not Gore's.

I will support Gore if he is the 2008 nominee, but it won't mean I have forgotten or forgiven, because I don't.

There is nothing to forgive regarding those 5 issues. And sure Gore would never ask for your "foregiveness" because of those 4 decisions you mentioned. (the "he disctanced himself from African-Americans" charge is utter nonsense so I does not include it as a decision)
He was right on all four and you cannot prove your allegations.
Judgment has to be made on facts. Gore had a lot more facts at his disposal in 2000 about Clinton's popularity -- or rather lack thereof, the Elian case or the rules if the electoral college if challenged. So if you say that those were poor judgments it doesn't have much credibility. It's like if Michael Brown said Jame Lee Witt exercised poor judgment after a natural disaster. Amateurs should not lecture professionals. It's true in policy and in politics.

You spread urban legends which is exactly what right-wingers do all the time. Particularly about Gore.
With voters like you it's no wonder that the truth no longer matters in politics, only speculation.

[0007]

178. The proof is in the pudding!

[drummo]

209. Yes. The proof is in the media spin. We all know that.

[Don1]

106. Here's Why.

Lieberman has always been militaristic and was also speaking against Clinton during his scandals. This has made him Republican lite and so they hoped to
(1) get some of the moderate vote
and (2) show they are tough on National Security.

It's a typical DLC Republocrat strategy. Ideology does not matter, it's only a game about gets to sit in bed with the corporations. And it's all at your expense.

[drummo]

114. National Security was a non-issue in 2000.

Character was THE issue.

What do you think Rove's "honor and dignity" strategy was all about?
Why do you think the media was so eager to paint Gore as a liar?

The DLC had nothing to do with Gore's pick. They didn't want Gore to separate himself from Clinton. And picking Joe was about just that.

And you are right ideology does not matter. It certainly didn't matter when Gore picked Lieberman.

[LZ1234]

126. I think you're right - I've often thought about that myself.

[barb162]

136. I think he was trying to grab centrist votes with Lieberman

and also "honesty" votes with Lieberman. By the latter I mean the taint of the Monica stuff caused Gore to want someone squeaky clean like Lieberman and that Lieberman could bring in voters who were convinced that the Dems were running a clean (no scandals) show for 2000.

[drummo]

138. Correct.

[GayCanuck]

157. i don't think your Jewish vote

is a bloc. I have Jewish friends here and in the US who think Lieberman is no better than bush. Plus they would like to see Israel end the illegal occupation of Palestine and Lieberman, of course, is in support of Sharon's regime.

[karynnj]

176. Wasn't true in 2000

I am no Lieberman fan, but even in Reform and Reconstrucionist circles I am in in NJ - there was excitement about Lieberman.

[BlueManDude]

158. He thought it would appease Russert and the WaPo edit. page

It didn't. He spent the entire campaign running from Clinton and the world has paid the price.

[Adelante]

163. There you go

:thumbsup:

[drummo]

164. The world has paid the price because Clinton couldn't control himself

If Gore had not run away from him he would have lost by a landslide.
Clinton was a loser in 2000, Bush would have defeated him according to every independent poll in 2000, except one in Oct which was within the margin of error -- just like the Gore-Bush polls at that time.

Clinton was very unpopular in the South in 2000. Check out the exit polls and his favorable ratings. Below 40% or worse.

You are wrong about the press reaction. For the first time in his campaign he got positive coverage after picking Joe.

[BlueManDude]

167. Wrong - the Beltway Media was always wrong about Clinton.

the point is gore tried to curry favor with the beltway press by picking lieberman - and what did it get him? so russert and matthews and woodruff get their panties wet for 2 days because of lieberman? big deal. they went back to trashing gore 48 hours later. the beltway bigfeet were always wrong about how much the public cared about lewinsky. they (the public) were disgusted and embarrassed by clinton's behaviour- but even more disgusted by starr and the witch hunt. clinton was at 60% the day he was "impeached". you're spinning rw crap.

[OzarkDem]

169. Sometimes we forget

just how much false information about Clinton was being spread and endlessly repeated by the mainstream news media back then.

Later, their success with Clinton gave them the incentive to continue to lie and report information they knew to be false leading up to Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Even the best campaign in the world can't overcome the lying news media. Dems have to make the news media realize just how much this is hurting our country.

[drummo]

170. They would have done it anyway no matter the running mate

No veep pick would have saved Gore from the press.
But at least after picking Joe Gore had a few good weeks.
In early Sept he was leading in the polls by 8-10%. If it hadn't been for the post-debate spin Gore would have retained that lead.

the beltway bigfeet were always wrong about how much the public cared about lewinsky.

You oversimplify it. It was not about lewinsky. It was about character. Credibility. "Honor and dignity" -- as Rove put it knowing very well what would work for the Reps. He desperately wanted to link Gore to Clinton. And after the convention he tried to re-link him to Clinton -- as the Bush camp called it.
And it's not the beltway press which told that Clinton's scandals hurt Gore. It was the polls. Most people thought even in Aug that Gore was too close to Clinton. Yes, too close.

they (the public) were disgusted and embarrassed by clinton's behaviour- but even more disgusted by starr and the witch hunt. clinton was at 60% the day he was "impeached". you're spinning rw crap.

Job approval rating is irrelevant in this case since Gore didn't get credit for the job Clinton did. As noone should get credit for the job someone else does. What mattered was the personal approval rating which created the character issue that Rove and Bush wanted to exploit. They got a huge help from the press -- who couldn't stop calling Gore a liar -- and from Clinton's personal approval numbers which were in the toilet in almost every state -- particularly in red states. Even Clinton understood that phenomenon when Daley told him he can't go to Iowa to campaign for Gore because swing voters didn't like him over there. Gore barely won Iowa, Kerry lost in 2004. It has become a fairly conservative state where Clinton would have hurt Gore enourmeously. Just like in every other southern state including Florida.

There was a long debate about the Clinton effect in 2000 on KOS. Read the posts by stardate and lando here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/25/19349/8314

If you actually consider the data, and not just your speculation, you cannot say that Clinton would have delivered any more states for Gore than he won anyway.
In fact he would have lost by a large margin had people continued to perceive him as Clinton's second banana.

you're spinning rw crap.

Look at Clinton's favorable ratings in red states in the exit polls.
Is that RW crap? Facts are facts even if you don't like them.

[0007]

227. What in the hell are you smoking these days, my friend?

[drummo]

230. I'm smoking 2000 polls which showed one after another that

Clinton was a loser in 2000.

All right?

Prove that it was not the case, if you can.

[KnowerOfLogic]

173. He was going for the RW "moral values" group, which he was told by

just about everyone he needed to win.

[drummo]

213. I don't think that just because someone cares about morality

he or she is RW.

In fact I am not RW but I can't stand if the president is "served"
by an intern in the Oval Office.

That's one reason why I support Gore. He is moral to the core.

[chappaquadem]

175. More importantly, would he make the same type of mistake again?

If Gore were to run again, have we any assurances that not only his advisers and campaign staff would be decidedly different (ie more effective)or that he would choose a VP that would help him win decisively the next election?

Also, would he continue to fight if there was a repeat of the shenanigans of his last presidential election? And who would his legal advisers be?

I think that if he were to step into the race again, that we need some sort of assurances that he would correct some of the wrongs of his last campaign (and some of the mistakes of Kerry's...who would be a good campaign manager, for example?).

[drummo]

214. Gore would not need a campaign staff but an entire ARMY

to combat the Rep spin machine.
Gore cannot do that alone. The party as a whole should do it -- including the grassroots.
They didn't do it in 2000.
They didn't do it for Kerry either.


I think that if he were to step into the race again, that we need some sort of assurances that he would correct some of the wrongs of his last campaign

Such as? The only reason why you call them "wrongs" is that he is not in the White House. Be that's because the election was stolen and not because of anything he did during the campaign.
If he was president noone would talk about those "mistakes".
Just like noone talks about Bush's campaign misktakes.

[Awsi Dooger]

179. Edwards was worth precisely the typical VP bump in North Carolina

I posted earlier in this thread, and mentioned the typical 3-4 point favorite son boost for a VP candidate in his home state, especially if the state has not been represented on the national ticket recently. Many times when I've mentioned this, protesters will insist Edwards was not worth anything in North Carolina, since our percentage was virtually unchanged from 2000 and 2004.

That's pathetically overlooking the relationship to the national popular vote average. My belief is that national margin is basically planted atop each state, and they adjust it according to the partisanship of the state. Included are aspects like favorite sons, or how the state economy differs from the national economy as a whole, etc. It's like trip handicapping in horse racing. Instead of accepting the speed rating as an absolute, you factor in variables like whether the horse was blocked or the jockey was forced into a wide trip. Ohio, for example, had a horrible state economy last year. The partisan index of +1 Democratic is probably long term unrepresentative of the true politics of the state.

Here is the partisanship chart for North Carolina since '88:

North Carolina:
'88: Bush (57.97 - 41.71) = + 8.54% Republican
'92: Bush (43.44 - 42.65) = + 6.35% Republican
'96: Dole (48.73 - 44.04) = + 13.22% Republican
'00: Bush (56.03 - 43.20) = + 13.34% Republican
'04: Bush (56.02 - 43.58) = + 9.98% Republican

You will note that while the 2000 and 2004 numbers are basically identical, the partisan index is 3.36% less Republican in 2004 than in 2000. That is the John Edwards influence, precisely what a VP favorite son should be worth. It was what I predicted here before the election. Gore won nationally by roughly .51% in 2000, while Bush carried the national popular vote by 2.46% in 2004. The number at right is always a net relationship between the state margin and the national margin. Our true partisanship deficit in North Carolina is closer to the 13% of 2000, than the 10% of 2004.

[AX10]

182. Bob Graham would have given us 10% in Florida.

Graham is very popular and a True Statesman. I'd take him as President too.

Sad that Gore didn't make a better choice.

[drummo]

215. Don't you think that it would have been portrayed by the Reps and the MSM

as the mother of all pandering?

There was another pander spin relating to Florida earlier during the campaign. The last thing Gore needed is yet another pander story hammered by the idiots in the press and the Bush camp.

And Graham wouldn't have helped Gore to gain among "moral voters" which he desperately needed in that post-Monica environment.
He needed someone who was the total opposite of Clinton in terms of character.

Not to mention that maybe Gore didn't like Graham. Who knows.
Or he didn't think he would make a good president. Or he thought he could not work with him. There could be plenty of reasons, about which you don't know, why Gore wouldn't have picked Graham not even for a million bucks.

[dolstein]

222. Agreed -- Lloyd Bensten carried Texas for Dukakis . . . Oh, wait . . .

I used to think that picking Graham would have guaranteed a Florida win for Gore. But then I saw Graham on the campaign trail in his aborted run for the Democratic nomination in 2004. Graham may be a terrific guy, but he's a lousy candidate, at least on the national stage. So I'm not sure picking Graham would have been a net plus.

[Skittles]

186. I remember thinking what a huge mistake it was

in retrospect, it was horrendous

[drummo]

216. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

[Owl]

228. I also remember thinking what a strange choice Lieberman was

[drummo]

231. Then you probably did not pay attention to Clinton's impeachment

[AlGore-08.com]

187. Actually, there were a number of reasons Gore picked Lieberman

But you have to put yourself back in 2000 for a minute and remember what it was like.

1.) Back during the Clinton Administration, both the left and the right loved Lieberman. Seriously. Arianna Huffington thought Lieberman was the greatest Democrat ever. She thought he was the only Democrat with true courage and leadership.

2.) Lieberman is and was very good at negotiating with Republicans in Congress (especially conservative Republicans). Since the 2000 Congress was going to be full of conservative Republicans (and conservative Dems), Lieberman would have been invaluable getting Gore's agenda through Congress.

3.) The press loved Lieberman. After Gore picked Lieberman, Gore had a solid week of positive press. (Which ended the moment Clinton gave his speech at the Convention. I'm sorry, it's true.)

3.) Rove's stated plan in 2000 was to make people see "Clinton" every time they heard "Gore". (And sorry, every time Clinton spoke publicly about the election, Gore's poll numbers went down.) The voters who hated Clinton loved Lieberman.

4.) Lieberman was a big part of turning Florida from a Bush safe state to a Gore state.

5.) Gore is genuinely committed to civil rights. So when Gore and his campaign were considering who to pick as his running mate, the question was asked "Is America ready for a Jewish Vice President?" Gore decided that "If it isn't, it ought to be".

6.) Gore and Lieberman were good friends in 2000. (This changed sometime between 2001 and 2002.) Like any other human, given a choice between working endless hours with a friend or a stranger (or even somebody who he couldn't stand on a personal level), Gore picked "work with a friend".

[drummo]

217. Well said.

[dolstein]

220. Thanks for posting this - you left one thing out

and that is the ideological compatibility between Gore and Lieberman. Now that Gore has undergone some kind of left-wing conversion, people around here conveniently forget that before he was tapped as Clinton's running mate, Al Gore was among the more moderate and hawkish Democrats in the Senate. He and Lieberman were among the few Democrats to vote with Republican senators in favor of the Gulf War resolution. In 1988, Gore positioned himself as the most conservative candidate in the field. And let's not forget his wife's crusade against obscene rock lyrics -- or Gore's own (private) outrage at Clinton's sexual conduct.

The fact is that like Bill Clinton in 1992, Al Gore tapped someone who (at least at the time) shared many of the same political views. Choosing Lieberman had other potential benefits -- symbolicly distancing Gore from the Clinton scandals, it was a "bold choice", a boost in Florida, etc. But without the ideoligical compatibility, I don't think Gore would have picked him.

[drummo]

232. Gore has NOT undergone some kind of left-wing conversion

What's your evidence?

Because he opposed Bush's invasion?

A bunch of Reps did the same, including Scott Ritter and Zinni.

Gore is not a peacenik. He was merely against this particular war.

And he is still moderate on domestic issues. For example he does not support gay marriage and he does not support increasing the government's size.

[zulchzulu]

204. Loserman brought "moral values", "moderate opinons"....

It was a miscalculatiion. Al wanted to get some guy who played Mr. Moral to counter what Al thought was the "immorality" of being linked to Bill Clinton and Monicagate. Still, Al won...except you know the rest of the story.

[drummo]

218. Don't use quotes. It WAS the immorality of Clinton why Gore

had to distance himself. And it was not a miscalculation. Check out the polls in 2000. Most voters had unfavorable opinion about Clinton. Guess why?
Without that distance Gore would have lost by a landslide.

[dolstein]

221. I guess you and I are part of the "reality based" community

Unlike so many other DU'ers who are so desparate to re-write history and pin all the blame of Gore's loss in 2000 on Lieberman. All the evidence I've seen would indicate that picking Lieberman was a net plus. Tapping Lieberman brought Gore the most sustained period of positive news coverage he had. It made him competitive in Florida. And Lieberman didn't commit any gaffes on the campaign trail. I honestly don't know what else you can expect from a VP nominee.

[hippiegranny]

224. and despite this horrendous choice

he did win the election.

[lessthanjake]

225. Heres what he wanted

He wanted two things.

1. The Jewish vote.
2. He wanted to look clean from the whole Clinton thing by taking a VP that spoke against Clinton about Monica Lewinsky.

[dolstein]

229. Why be so crass? Perhaps we should take Gore at his word.

At the time Lieberman was selected, Gore claimed that among the people he considered, Lieberman's views were most compatible with his own. Let's not forget that Gore was one of the more hawkish members of the Senate, and that Gore and Lieberman were among the few Democrats to joint with Republicans in voting for the Gulf War resolution. Let's also not forget that Bill Clinton didn't seek to "balance" the ticket in 1992. Instead, he picked someone whose views were very similar to his own - Al Gore.

Sure, since the 2000 election, Gore seems to have undergone some kind of ideological conversion. But the earlier Al Gore was very much in the same moderate DLC mold as Joe Lieberman.

[drummo]

233. And he is still a moderate. Bush is far-right.

[leanin_green]

234. It was before Gore became his own man.

[drummo]

235. Nonsense. Gore has always been a loner with only a few trusted policy

advisors like Leon Fuerth -- who has not much to do with politics. He never took political hacks seriously. Bob Schrum or anyone.