An observation: Gore, Kerry, Double Standard?

[politicasista]

As a person that believes in experience as a factor for the 08 campaign, I have noticed the more that the 08 talk heats up, the more the 08 threads than current event (i.e. Iraq) increase.

Where is this post going? Well, as you guys know I like Kerry :), as well as Gore. :) Both of them got raw deals in 2000 and 2004. They both love the environment. I always post good thoughts in threads about them without bashing one to promote the other.

We all right now that the 08 field is very thin on experience, which is why Firespirit posted her cool post about The case for JK running and why there is a "Please Al Gore" thread in GDP.

The pet peeve that makes me mad as karyn and Fire noted the other day, is that you see "Please Al Gore" but "Stay out, don't run John" posts when you never see "Stay out, don't run Edwards, Clark, Obama, Dodd, Gravel, Vilsack, Kucinich, Sharpton, Biden, Richardson, etc." Doesn't anyone have the right to run? The double standard in the blogsphere is astounding.

Speaking of double standard, I know there was a quote from Gore about election (fraud) irregularities saying something like "there will come a time to address that." Had Kerry said the exact same thing, the lefty freepers heads would have exploded while posting personal attacks and expletives. (Notice how the 2000 election with no senator standing up was brought up for a while despite the facts)?

Another example of the double standard is making the case for Gore and Kerry to run. Though Gore has said he isn't running, but he hasn't ruled it out. The lefty freepers can only say that "Gore is a special case" or that he has "evolved" because he has been out of politics since 2001. (Do they remember pre-2000? or know where he stands?) But no "Kerry can't run, cause he didn't________." I know the sympathy factor also is with Gore because, in retrospect, it was a close and bitter election and it was stolen from him from Bushco, and the SC. Had the entire state of FL been recounted, he would have won.

Yes, I understand, both elections were different. Gore was going against an alcoholic, coke snorting, death penalty loving TX Governor, while Kerry was going against an incumbent wartime president who had been pimped and propped up by the broadcast media.

As Democrafty said, I know I have to be very careful not to give the "I hate politics" group credit, but I am sick of the bashing and tearing down of a good Dem like Kerry just to promote Gore and act like he's the only one that can save us.

I know I am long-winded, but this is just an observation. :shrug:

[beachmom]

1. Because they are SO unbelieveably disappointed Kerry lost.

Those emotions are much more raw than 2000. Plus Gore did disappear for a while and seemed to come back a changed man, with a new movie and book, and one cause that he was very passionate about. Meanwhile, Kerry has stayed in the Senate, and been fairly visible at least to bloggers, so to them, he's still the guy who lost in 2004, and they don't want to risk him losing again. That's really what it boils down to. They bring up stuff about his record, but if he was younger with the same record and experience, came from the West, and hadn't been the 2004 nominee, they'd be going all ga ga over him. It's the superficial and the recent pain which have them behaving like that. Sometimes, it's good just to understand it, so that you can calmly explain why he has something special that a "fresh face" could never imitate. Gore just has the luxury of more time going by -- that's mostly what this is.

[karynnj]

2. I agree that it's because of the pain - but here's another take

but I think there's also the element that Kerry genuinely convinced them that he could win. That calm powerful strength that he projects and the way the last 2 weeks went (excepting the OBL tapes) made them really really believe the nightmare was over - then it collapsed and it was gone. Kerry's very real ability to convince people that he could win, lead and make things better was there - even for some still in love with Dean.

I do understand the emotional roller coaster. I went to my county seat and was helping with te GOTV. The emotional surge as the preliminary exit polls came in can't be exaggerated. A one house my fellow canvasser and I came to - the guy had just been called by a sister who worked for one of the networks - it's Kerry he said - gleefully laughing already cleberating.

When we returned to the town green - people had huge Kerry signs and people were honking and applading (the town is Democratic, the county Republican). I was shocked that it felt like a weight was off my shoulders and I felt this huge wave of endorfins. Then I picked up food and drove home. Shortly after 8 everything changed.

That certainty in the middle drives the election fraud anger. With Gore there was no intense moment when he won and then it was grabbed away. So, even though he REALLY did win, emotionally there was never that moment.

[beachmom]

4. You are so right about that. Those STUPID exit polls.

I actually stayed up until 3 AM, because I thought it had to be wrong. The exit polls had him winning so there was no way he could lose. Anyway, at 3 AM, NBC called it for Bush. I guess I'm different from many others, because I felt he conceded at the right time. The margin was insurmountable, plus he lost the popular vote. People don't seem to understand that when you're down 3.5 million votes nationally, and 120,000 votes in the last battleground state, nobody takes voter fraud seriously -- at least your regular non-engaged voters. And perception IS reality. So when people whine about him "not fighting for our vote", I just defer mostly to you guys because I don't know how to answer something that I sincerely do not understand. There was no way in hell he could contest that election.

[karynnj]

6. I think you just countered it beautifully

The problem is that if the exit polls were properly weighted (which they always were in the past) Kerry likely did win if the sampling process was well designed (it was not a new design) and implemented properly.

If you made those assumptions,then you have a problem the "actuals" (the counted votes) are outside the range of the predicted.

This could mean:
- there were errors in the analysis (which would have been caught by now)
- errors in the design (again would have been considered)
- all of the states could have simultaneously been outside the 95% confidence interval - though the probability of that is infinitesimal.
- there were errors in implementing it (The choice the people who did the study chose)
- there were systematic errors - that made people think they voted Kerry when they didn't -
(This is my best guess of the truth - in Ohio, many ways that people made errors due to lack of good instructions had to add up. There were sites with multiple precincts where people got there card and used any machine - but the candidates were in different order - analysis (here -accuaracy unknown) showed "ghosts" where Kerry was positioned in other precincts at the site. In one place, many hispanic voters apparently put the ballot into the machine (either upside down or backwards - laeading to very unlikely votes. Also, some provisional ballots were rejected. Could these errors add up - unfortunately, yes. If this is true - it means Kerry won, but the reason was sloppy procedures in urban areas - not evil fraud. Caveat - all this comes from DU threads and can be baseless.)
- fraud altered the vote

Having seen everything - I do think Kerry would have won Ohio if there were adequate machines and no harrasment of any kind. The RFKjr analysis is reasonable - BUT as Kerry said at least a year earlier there was no law that made it illegal.

[wisteria]

11. I agree with you on the concession. He had no other choice at the time.

Besides, if he would of attempted to contest with the numbers as they were, he would of been a laughing stock. The media was not going to go down that year 2000 path again- no way.And, certainly not with the margin between kerry and Bush as it was. I ignore those posters who claim he should of contested. They just aren't reasonable. I think they wanted to see him self destruct. No one would take a recount seriously with the margin as it were. Oh, and Kerry would have had to do this on his own, the party wasn't going to back him up.

[politicasista]

3. Good replies

I do agree with you had Kerry not been the nominee in 04 and considered an 08 run, they would be going ga, ga.

I do understand that there is still a lot of pain in 04 because it's still hard to believe that the average American brought into the corporate media spin that Bush was so likeable and a strong leader. And there were people that sacrificed their spring break and summer vacation to change the direction of the country, only to be let down by the final result.

[karynnj]

9. To steal an idea from someone else

They may NOT have bought that Bush was nice. They may have thought correctly that Bush was surly, mean and vindictive and if anyone moved against us, he would strike back unconditionally. Where Kerry was seen as someone who would have limits in striking back. In their anger and fear, they voted for the bad guy, not the perfect gentleman.

[MarjorieG]

5. Truly the reminder of loss.

There must always be someone to blame, an all or nothing. Ignoring that we came closer than expected, gained a grassroots, a media, some organization.

Mostly, with results that close, and that suspicious, feelings of why couldn't we just find it, go looking in an unfriendly state, against a hostile media, in a state not wanting to recount. The campaign did not think at that point it could be overturned, and mounting a challenge requires some proof that holds up. We didn't have it, and still don't.

However the popular vote happened, with more votes than people, three million is a hurdle to get past, just to go fishing.

So much bad deconstruction out there, and people are tired of defending, and others still don't know him well enough to be bothered.

I love what a Gore could provide in leadership, but, with apology, I find him as oddly insular and lacking the Kerry warmth and grace. Emotional quotient is as important as the IQ.

People need to see the field shape up Lets hope the media is at least equal in their lies.

Unless it's a Kerry campaign, I am sticking with election reform, building the local organization. Improvement won't happen without us.

[MarjorieG]

8. Just adding

Phantom votes and vote shifting really did happen. There is the manual button on Sequoia that allows multiple votes. Plus traditional trickery that should be illegal, but isn't.

With the road to the Supreme Ct closed, we were stuck in 2004 with a public happy that they didn't have 2000 allover again. I always contended that people did not know enough or were invested enough in the need for change.

They realized quickly, without more orange alerts, just what they voted for, but I'm not sure they still understood what they lost in not having Kerry, particularly.

[sandnsea]

7. There's always been a Kerry double standard

One example. Kerry saying we need to quit crying in our teacups and get over (2000), while 'fight to win' was never tacked on. Why was he more responsible for getting us past 2000 than Gore?? And why does Gore not pay a price for doing nothing about election fraud in Florida, why is he not held accountable for letting election fraud slide? It's stunning that Democratic Senators get beaten up more than the man who actually told them he didn't want anyone to contest. Kerry never let anybody take the heat for the election except him. That's ethics and integrity. It's sad so few people recognize it.

[wisteria]

10. I agree with you and it is not fair.

As I see it, we have two choices, we can be nasty and post similar comments in other candidate threads, but this is really counter productive and I believe really doesn't change someones mind about the candidate. Or, we can continue to counter the bashers with good posts about positive things Kerry has done.

The Gore support comes from the fact that it has been six/seven years since the 2000 election and people have selective memories. Gore was our VP and that gives him some added clout. However, much of the Gore worship is rooted in hype and wishful thinking. I don't go challenge Gore supporters because I think they have in some ways created a fantasy. Gore was out of office when he became the stand-up, outspoken take on the President kind of guy. He never had to vote on the IWR, and I still believe that those who were not faced with the choice have no right to claim any higher ground then those who voted for it. They never faced that tough choice. So saying they would not of, is meaningless, because anyone can claim this -even with a nice speech.

As for the Kerry resentment, some of this is due to the emotional level of the last election. He lost, how dare he lose to Bush, we trusted him to win. See, I told you he couldn't do it, we needed so and so, they would have won. And then all the RW nonsense is thrown in to add fuel to the fire, and justify their belief in his failures. Kerry is the type of man who garners strong opinions from others. All great men have enemies. And anyone challenging the status quo will have anger directed at him also. Kerry may well be the first candidate in fifty years on the Democratic side to challenge the notion that we can only run a losing candidate one time. That in itself makes people uncomfortable and nervous that he could lose again. Dragging people forward is never easy, people don't like to be moved from their comfortable ideas and positions.Some see Gore as better able to win, because "he did win", but was cheated out of it and more time has gone by and the anger has had time to settle. Personally, I believe Kerry was a much better candidate and campaigner than Gore, and side by side in a Presidential race, I think people would go for Kerry. He is still in the game, fighting every day for us, Gore, retreated and disappeared for two years. I think that says a lot about their determination and staying power.

[k j]

12. Time

Not enough time has passed is my gut response, and after reading all the replies above, what those posters said, as well.

I was just talking about this a few minutes ago with my husband. The thing is, in 1999 and 2000, Al Gore was NOT cool. I remember, I campaigned for him, and he was considered tainted goods, a centerist, a stiff bore, and the lefies I knew held their noses when his name was mentioned. I don't think a lot of the people who voted Dem at the time were really aware of just what a failure of a human being GWB was, although the Washington Post did a series on his background in the summer of 1999 that curled my hair and should have curled everyone's hair, imo. And, a whole lot of people were simply not aware that the Impeachment Folly was the first in what has been a continuing series of assaults on the American voters. It was an attempted coup, plain and simple. And the 2000 election WAS the most important election in our lifetime, imo.

Me? I liked Gore from way back. He was the techies (nerds) dream candidate and the hope for many who waited out Clinton's terms for Gore's shot. For those of us used to looking at politics with a long-view, Gore was much further left than Clinton and his terms in office were going to accomplish what many of us were hoping for: a return to populism with all that entails, and a focus on technology and the environment and keeping America's technological edge. (Which would include limits on outsourcing.)

Now, enough time has passed that Al is looking really, really good to the lefties. And Kerry is damaged goods. I spoke with some progressives in KC the other day, a couple who still sported a John Kerry bumper sticker on their car, asked if they were going to support Kerry if he chose to run again, and I got a resounding "NO!" from both of them. So, here we go again, with the perception of Kerry that was spelled out by the posters above, which is very similar to the perception Al carried around him for years.

Part of me thinks if Kerry can win the nomination again, these disappointed folks will rally in a big way, because Kerry truly does have the bonafides to lead this country at this time.

The other side of me thinks that a lesser qualified candidate might win, because at this point, it's an 'anybody can be better than GWB' and not enough of a realization that after 8 years of this misAdministration, we need THE strongest, most qualified President we can find, and not just any old/new 'dream candidate' Democrat.

Just my thoughts, for what they're worth, which isn't much. ;-)

[karynnj]

13. Interesting comments

I think Kerry's best chance if he runs is that it is a LONG process this time with debates starting very early. This helps Kerry for at least 5 reasons:

- In a debate, candidates that throw things out that are not true or not backed by their real past, will get called on it. Candidates who lie can be shown to do so - live is and should be easier for those who "always tell the truth". Now is the time where somethings said by candidates go unchallenged, where they will be challenged in debates. (At the risk of misstating things: Dr Ron is a good example of someone who broke with a candidate he was actively with when it was clear that he was distorting things.)

- Candidates who have stayed quiet for the last 4 years when their voices were needed - have to take stands and can be called on their prior silence. There is a virtue to not having as many contradictory sound bites, but there will be a year when they are on the line. Also, experience in dealing with the confrontational sound bite talk shows has to be a plus - my guess is that they are extremely stressful. (Kerry has an enormous advantage because he always tells the truth and does what he thinks is right.)

- The length of time could do what the more stretched out debates used to do - leading to candidates leading than stumbling, candidate weaknesses being discovered, candidate strengths being seen. I have seen comments that this is a very strong field - but we've seen major weaknesses in most of them. Part of that is bias, but part is because there are three over-hyped candidates. The media pushed Hillary from 2001 on. I will behave myself and say nothing of Edwards. Obama may be the savior people have pushed him as - and he seems like a very good, very promising person - but the hype itself may hurt him if he is shown to be human.

- Kerry actually has depth and substance on:
- Iraq and foreign policy (where Edwards and Obama are weak, Edwards at some point is going to be hit by some Senators - and Obama may be the one best positioned to do it)
- Corruption (where Obama is also good and Hillary is married to Bill ;))
- Environment (Kerry has real credentials - the Clintons did little in the 1990s, Edwards had a mediocre record)
- Poverty (Edwards talks more, but Kerry did more and he needs to do a better job in blowing his own horn. The Clintons didn't do as much as they should have.)
- Health care (Kerry (likely via Kennedy has to make his S-CHIP contribution better known, Hillary Care shows Hillary at her worst - her unwillingness to say who met with her was used to defend Cheney's far far worse secret energy meetings, Edwards is an empty suit but likely to try to steal this.)

- There will be outside events as well, such as:
- If Gore doesn't run, the interesting question is who he will back, if anyone.
- How these people react to world events. (Only Kerry and to a lesser degree Hillary (Often only Bill did) have had to re-act to years of events as they occurred and say what should be done on the spot. Kerry has done a brilliant job on this - rarely having to second guess himself. As someone becomes a serious contender, he/she will be in that spot too.
- Life happens. Kerry who was well positioned in 2003 was clearly slowed down by cancer and I think it was in the recovery period when he was less visible that competitors were able to change the early 2003 perception of Kerry as against the invasion (Kerry's regime change comment got play) to pro-war because of his vote. (Also, without the cancer, would Kerry have been more vocal in the February/March period following the January 23 speech)

(editted because it is very embarrasing for a math major to say 4 reasons, then list 5. :)

[k j]

14. Great to chat!

Trust me, as a math dolt, I wouldn't have noticed the discrepancy in the number of reasons stated v listed. ;-)
I enjoyed your comments and reasonings above and should probably digest them before replying, but want to flesh out some thinking and ask you a question before I head out of the house. (More snow coming.)

Could you, if you know, tell me what the debate structure is look like? I haven't followed along in that level of detail and what you said above sounds extremely promising... especially since I was worried about how to counteract the shortened primary season. I DO think that selling "Experience * Experience * Experience" will highlight Kerry as a cut above the rest of the pack. To stay with the "cut" thought, the fat's been trimmed off Kerry, as you showed above. He's lean, both with his words and his actions, black and white. That has to count in this field and I want to think of ways to express that idea in the shortest possible way. (Sigh, there's never enough time to counter perception in the line at the grocery store. Also, I don't have access to a regular newspaper column anymore and will need to refine LTEs instead.) And part of what I want to sell is the idea that we DON'T have "time" to, for lack of a better word, coddle a relative newcomer. We DON'T have the luxury of the time it took Clinton to find his sea legs. We DON'T have the innocence to vote with stars in our eyes and soaring hope in our hearts. Time has sped up and we need to catch up. It isn't enough to be disgusted at GWB or disgusted with what he's done, we need to FIX what he's done. We need to hit the ground running, period, end of story. Even with that not-exactly well-thought out and abstract criteria, nobody but Kerry comes near the mark. That's a plain as day, no matter how much a cult of personality or cult of whatever adds to the scale.

Okay, probably not making much sense. ;-)

I know Kerry's not going to have the time he needs to change perceptions, so I want to know just what kind of time he does have, and then work on the leverage issues. Hone the spade, dig quick and deep.

And yes, watching Dr. Ron's conversion was a fantastic example of how facts 'n figures trumped personality and promise(s). There are plenty of potential old Dr. Rons about and I wanna reel them in. BTW, Dr. Ron's blog is getting picked up and linked all the time now. Very cool!

Thanks in advance!

ps. I hold out hope that Al Gore would, this time, endorse John Kerry. If for no other reason that a belated realization than Kerry just might have helped, not hindered, his ticket in 2000. One of Al's biggest mistakes in that run, imo, at the time and now.

pss. What I was trying to say in the ramble above was: I think experience is going to be the factor that weighs in with nerdies, techies, swing-voters and long-time activists (who don't have a personal stake in another candidate). I think focusing on experience, if we have the time and message(s) at the ready, will trump hope and idealism, because there isn't a soul around who doesn't realize this country is in a hellva mess. Even my die-hard Republican siblings will admit to that much. I want to cultivate an edge of urgency and clipped speech, because truly, we're in deep. Also repetition, repetition, repetition, because repetition works.

[wisteria]

16. One note, if Gore doesn't run, I think he will back the best environmentalist!

Now, who do you think that is?

[karynnj]

20. Obviously Kerry But, last time he didn't

Dean had a very mixed environmental record. Gore may have considered that Kerry couldn't win (that was Dec when he polled around Sharpton's level), still worried about the factors that bothered him in 2000, or went with the then frontrunner figuring that it could lead to a candidaet essentially picked before the primaries.

I don't think they were friens in the Senate, but Gore liked him enough that he was on the short list for vp. (Edwards' inclusion maens less as they didn't overlap). Gore's speech at the convention was generous and true. I assume Gore recognized that it was generous of Kerry to let Carter, all his primary opponents and Gore have a chance to speak. Carter had not spoken since 1980.

I sgree if Gore just "grades" what they did and say, Kerry wins. If he goes for politics, an interesting endorsement would be Obama. (more for not picking one of the other 2 - if I were him I would resent the position the Clintons put me in and as a solid public service person, he may be leary that the Edwards he saw in 2000 is not the Edwards of 2004 nor the Edwards of 2007.)

[cadmium]

15. The disappointment and resentment are big factors - also

I think that some of these posts that repeat the same anti-Kerry phrases can be following directions of rival political camps --- trying to discourage supporters. The phrases they use are so repetitive I can't believe that so many individuals just come up with them of the top of their heads.

[Inuca]

17. Same here

Almost all replies refer to the resentment against Kerry for not having won in 04. I agree. And I am also afraid that this frustration may be impossible to overcome, unfair as it may be (PLEASE tell me I am wrong). I think that man people, democrats and otherwise, no matter how they voted 2 years ago, realize in what a huge mess we are now, and many are also scared. Among the dems, the hate for B and his gang is getting worse by the day. All of this may lead to an irrational hate toward the man that could have changed all this, but did not. Again, much of it is irrational, hence it cannot be changed with rational arguments, at least not much. IMHO this should be a completely negative campaign, for JK or for any other democrat. Negative in the sense that there should be an emphasis on how bad things are (unfortunately so true), and how the candidate is the best position to change it. The argument would work for Kerry, not much for Obama or Edwards (because I think stressing the importance of experience should be an important part of it), but it can also work for Hillary, especially that many people will associate her with the "good Clinton years", again irrational, but I think true. Overall, I am not very optimistic, not for our guy, nor for an alternative I could feel really good about :-(

[politicasista]

18. I am with you

Even though I like Obama (though feel like he needs more experience) out of the crop so far, I don't care for the rest. It almost feels like they were already campaigning in 2004 instead of 2008, but that JMO. :(

[Inuca]

19. I like Obama too

but as I said in the past, it's almost like I do not know why I like him so much, and I do not trust myself for that :-). It's like I instinctively trust him, same as I do JK, but rationally.... there is no comaprison between the two.

[politicasista]

21. I agree with you

I like them both. :)