Gore

The Diary at Kos makes some interesting points, but the discussion is even better. Especially this link-rich comment, which I've reproduced below in extended entry. I confess that I've been enamored of Gore for a while - I've been a fan of his since Clinton's first term. And reviewing his policies, I have to admit that he's a far closer fit in terms of being conservative or liberal on an issue by issue basis to my own assessment and instincts than any other pol.

I'll keep an eye on him. He did the right thing by bowing out on 2004. But right now what we really need is competent government, and Gore (unlike Kerry) would also bring real vision and principle with him. The only time Gore was ever afraid to be Gore was in the 2000 election and it cost him a comfortable enough margin to win Florida unambigously. I think that since then he has spent the last five years returning to his skin. And he feels more comfortable there than ever before, especially since he isn't following Bill, but George.

So why not? if it's because you think he is a loser, well, read the links below. Gore lost the debate spin, not the debates.

 

Selective memories?! (4.00 / 2)

You mean, I have to remember his sighings in the first debate? Guess what, in real time no pundit noticed that. It took a couple of days till GOP or the media corps produced the spin. Just like with "inventing internet"...

Gore lost the debate spin, not the debates themselves.

Gore did not act that obviously annoying in the first debate. Just look at the first reactions and actual transcript objectively. It was a very delicate organised work of selecting the soundbits and ramming them through all MSM channels for whole weeks that formed those "debate memories". Perhaps the diligent activists were surprised themselves by the success.

And you know what? In 2004 Bush learned a lot from Gore. He learned to sigh when he could not really answer (pretending that the remarks are ridiculous, whereas Gore was reacting to really ridiculous talk). His "character" was different in each of the three debates. And he got everything both ways! Is there anyone else who can be that lucky?

Then there was the myth created that substance does not matter in presidential debates. Yeah, substance is irrelevant when outright lies of one candidate are kindly ignored, but trivial lapses of the other candidate (with whom he visited the Texas flood, how cramped are Florida school classes) are cruelly exaggerated. After all, it was Bush's math that was  fuzzy, but "fair and balanced" media corps decided otherwise!

Gore played seriously in the debate game run by clowns. Even the moderator was concerned to support the Bushie moderator. And let's not forget, the third debate started with a backhanded "apology" to Gore.

So yeah, the spin was memorably lost. But how much is this Gore's fault, and how much is this smallmindedness of scribes who were supposed to guide the debates objectively?

by das monde on Wed Oct 5th, 2005 at 01:52:30 CST