The real problem with Gore running

[Bucky]

I was just reading the http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051806.shtml">Daily Howler's review of how two technically friendly liberal journalists are still missing the point whenever they report on a Gore candidacy. A good read. But it occurred to me, while reading this passage, what part of Gore's real problem with the press is.

ALTERNATE OLBERMANN QUESTION: Does every misstep that this administration takes... make another Gore presidential campaign that much more feasible? After all, Gore made a prophetic speech in September 2002, arguing against going into Iraq. That speech reads like pure prophecy now. Doesn’t Gore now have the perfect profile on this most significant issue? Couldn’t Gore run for president saying, “Hey voters! Listen up! I was right on Iraq?”....

And by the way, couldn’t Gore run for president saying “I was right” on a whole string of major issues? On Saturday Night Live, he joked about the price of gas. But wasn’t he also right, way back in 1992, when he wrote that we needed to move beyond internal combustion? And doesn’t he get to say “I was right” as we start to confront global warming? Wouldn’t this guy have a whole string of issues on which he could say, “I was right?” And wouldn’t that make a great platform?

That's the jist of why Gore can't catch a break. Any reporter doing a thorough story of where Gore has stood on the major public issues, often before they became major issues, from terrorism to energy to the environment, is going to end up sounding like a shill for him. Gore's been so right, so often, on so many different issues so consistantly, that (as Steve Colbert has pointed out) the facts really do have a left wing bias.

As the sig file below suggests, I'm not exactly a Gore partisan. He like so many other top Dems allowed his handlers to talk him into talking like a moron to the public. I don't doubt that he'd be a great president. But I do deeply regret that excellent job performance isn't even among the top three criteria for selecting a leader.

[ourbluenation]

1. That's a problem I can deal with....bring it!

[NYCGirl]

2. So right, so often? Everyone should have such problems!

:evilgrin:

[Jersey Devil]

3. Too much analyzing was done on the piece

Keith did a 2-3 minute piece on a guy who so far says he isn't running in the middle of a busy news night and they want every aspect of it to be perfect. Give Keith a break.

[Bucky]

4. Look, I think he made major mistakes in 2000

He really let the Republicans walk all over him when he ran and talked in, frankly, baby talk when addressing certain crowds. But Gore's been through a walk in the woods since then. I thought he showed good judgment bowing out of the 2004 race. I haven't disagreed with anything he's done or said since. His comments have been welcome, insightful, respectful of his place in the political world, and dead on right. His political rhetoric has been mature and his delivery far far more natural.

I think he's ready to move onto big things. If he runs against my guy, I think he'd give us a run and I'd be honored to lose to him. There's also two things he's not... Hillary and Kerry.

[Skinner]

5. That's actually an interesting thought.

Not just about Gore, but about any politician that has been right on a lot of things. The reporters feel they need to "balance" the story with something. They can't just say all the great stuff they've done.

[skipos]

6. Isn't funny how many people claimed Bush and Gore were the same

back in 2000? Oh America, always learning things the hard way.

[The Jacobin]

11. Like this jackass?

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. Has he learned? Some how I doubt it!

:argh: We'll see that jackass in '08, bank on it! :banghead:

[Ksec]

7. I hope he runs

This time, loosen up. He looked stiff and too manufactured. Work on that Al and you may be the next Pres.

[ladjf]

13. Yeah. And no more Lieberman, Brazile or Shrum.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. So the big problem is...

that he's so good even unbiased reporters have to praise his graces...

If only all of life's problems were so good.

[Jayhawk Lib]

9. My problem with Gore is

he did not even carry his own state. If a candidate cannot carry his own state tells me this is the wrong candidate.

[The Jacobin]

12. This is the same problem with Wes Clark

He couldn't even win a primary. Maybe he could win, but I would sure feel a lot better about backing him if he already knew how to win.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. He did win a primary as a matter of fact.

He won Oklahoma, and that made him the only candidate besides Kerry to win one outside of his birth or home state.

[TahitiNut]

10. Presidents no longer "run" - they "apply." They're not elected, either.

They're hired. :shrug: Welcome to corporate Amerika.

[Baconfoot]

14. "So right, so often."

So why aren't you a Gore partisan?

;-)

[Bucky]

15. Because Clark *rawks*

I took a "pick your ideal candidate" quiz and Gore beat out Clark for me (98% to 96%, so not a big difference). My major beef with Gore is his salesmanship. He sucks. He talks like Barney the Dinosaur on the stump. He's smart as a box of tacks, but I find his cadence cloying and I think a lot of other people do too. Often he sounds like he's explaining his positions to a 3rd grader. That can seem damned condescending and I wish to God he'd stop it. Clark talks to audiences like they're intelligent. First time I heard him speak as a possible candidate, he was talking about the importance of the Enlightenment in the framing of the Constitution. Gore never talks about the Enlightenment. That's the big difference in campaign styles between an ex-professor and an ex-TV reporter. Gore's gotten better lately, but not to the point of being good.