Sore Loserman, Two

I'm not ready to jump on the Al Gore bandwagon, although over the last couple years he has sure sounded like a President.

But I can't forget how he booted the 2000 election.

Yes, the Media Elites were hostile to him and, determined to punish him because they couldn't punish Bill Clinton and bring him down, did their best to make the most important issues of the campaign Gore's supposed lies about inventing the Internet and modeling for the character of Oliver in Love, Story.

The first "lie" was a Republican twisting of a legitimate claim by Gore and the second was a harmless bit of vanity, but the Media Elites repeated them over and over as if the one was true and the other important, contending that taken together they told us something vital about Al Gore's character.

Meanwhile, with all their attention focused on their invented flaws in Gore's character, they neglected to notice or point out that George Bush didn't have any---character, that is, not flaws.  Flaws he had aplenty.

But although the Media Elites didn't help Gore they didn't undo him.

Neither did Ralph Nader.

Gore undid himself.

It's fun to point out that Gore actually won the election.  Not just fun, it's true, and it's necessary to keep pointing it out because the Media's willingness to ignore the fact has helped create the mess the country's in now by legitimizing George W. Bush's stolen Presidency.  Gore won more votes across the nation.  Gore won more votes in Florida.  An honest recount would have proven that, but even without that only a fool or a tool believes that Pat Buchanan won all those votes in Palm Beach County.  Even the most diehard Right Wing lickspittles for Bush don't question that one.  They just make fun of little old ladies and claim that the people who can't read the unreadable don't deserve to have their votes counted.

But the reason the Bush Leaguers were able to steal the Presidency was that Gore's margin of victory was absurdly small.

Bush squeeked out his re-election, and it was laughable when he claimed that he had any kind of a mandate after that.

Al Gore's mandate would have been even more laughable.

And that should not have happened.

Gore should have won in a walk.

Gore didn't need Florida.  He needed New Hampshire.  He needed Arkansas.  He needed Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and Louisiana---all states that Bill Clinton won in 1996, all states that Gore lost in 2000.

If Gore had picked up even one of those states, he'd have been President---assuming the Bush Leaguers didn't find another way of stealing the election.

I don't know if he could have won all of them (Clinton lost Illinois; Gore won it.  So it goes.) but he should have been able to win a few of them, and I believe the reason he didn't was Gore's own vanity.

In 2000, Al Gore forgot that the reason he was the Democratic candidate for President was that Bill Clinton couldn't run for a third term.

He forgot that Bill Clinton was currently the most popular President ever.

He forgot that he was Bill Clinton's Vice-President.

He forgot that the main reason most of us were voting for him was because we expected him to pick up where Clinton left off.

He decided that what America wanted was an Al Gore who had nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

So he wouldn't let Clinton campaign with him, even though Gore should never have appeared in any Southern state, including his home state of Tennessee, without Bill Clinton glued to his hip.

And he chose for his running mate the one and only Democratic Senator who had distinguished himself as a critic of Bill Clinton during the Impeachment Crisis, the one and only Democratic Senator who had gone out of his way to help give a veneer of bipartisan respectability to the Republican attempt at a coup.

He chose the Quisling from Connecticut and thereby announced to the country that he, Al Gore, wanated nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

Which was essentially the argument, "Don't vote for me if you want the policies of the last eight years to continue."

Since the Republican candidate was making that same argument, the choice came down to picking between two anti-Clintons. 

No surprise that people faced with that choice decided that if it was time for a change from Clinton they might as well go the whole way and vote for the anti-est anti-Clinton.

Understandably, Al Gore wanted to be seen as his own man, and to be elected President for his own qualifications and achievements.  But that wasn't what the rest of the country wanted and a smarter politician---one with more humility, a virtue that is not incompatable with outrageous ego, which is why I'd argue that Clinton has humility, FDR and JFK had it too, and perhaps Al Gore has finally learned it---would have recognized that and accepted it and used it.

The time for Al Gore to be his own man was during his Presidency.  His re-election campaign in 2004 would have been about his achievements.

There was somthing else Gore forgot.

That he wasn't a Southerner.

At least not one other Southerners recognized as one of them.

He'd been too long in Washington.

He'd been too much a member of the Club.

He was seen for what he was, a representative of the Northeastern Liberal Establishment.

A view of himself he confirmed when he chose another member of the Club as his running mate.

Nevermind what we know Lieberman is now, when he and Al Gore appeared together on posters, in commercials, and on the stump, what a lot of Southerners saw---Southerners, hell.  What most people saw---was a pair of smug, pointy-headed, Northeastern, Liberal elitists running against a Texan and a Westerner.

Republicans at the time tried, and they're still trying, to paint Bill Clinton as the exact same sort of smug, pointy-headed, Liberal elitist, but what most people saw when they looked at Bill was one of them, a Bubba.

When it came time to choose his own Vice-President, Al Gore forgot that Bill Clinton hadn't chosen him to shore up Clinton's image as a Southerner, but to reassure the Democratic establishment that he was a serious would-be statesman.

Gore needed his own Clinton.

He chose his own Al Gore.

In doing so, I believe he wrote off all those Southern states that Bill Clinton had won.

So as much as I like what Gore has been up to, I still haven't gotten over the way he fumbled the ball in 2000.

I can forgive him for that, if he shows he's learned from his mistakes.  But I'm not sure I can forgive him for what else his chosing Lieberman did.

It made Joe Lieberman think he was important.

It made the Media Elites think Joe Lieberman was important.

It made Joe Lieberman what he is today.

The darling of the Right Wing blogs, the White House's pet Democrat, and the future Republican Senator from Connecticut.

Comments

[The Green Knight]

All true. I remember loathing Lieberman at the time, as well. The specific moment was hearing him giving a speech about morality in the public square, and thinking he sounded just like a Jerry Falwell.

[Holdie Lewie]

When you're running for national office, give the people what they want, no matter how much it sticks in your craw.

What bothers me (I don't know if it bothers Al) is that Southerners won't vote for a ticket that doesn't include a Southerner. People in other regions don't have this hang-up because they're more healthy psychologically.

So, yes, you're right on the money. Clinton didn't put Al on the ticket because he wanted two Southerners on the ballot. He put Al there for ... well, I hate the word, but ... for gravitas.

In 2000, Al mistakenly thought he was the Southern half of the ticket. It's a mistake that someone with Clinton's skills would never had made. Maybe that's forgiveable. Elevating Lieberman isn't.

[Kit Stolz]

Al Gore bandwagon? Surely you're kidding...there is no Al Gore bandwagon, and if there was one, that post-election beard of his would have stopped it in its tracks. I don't think the American people will ever forgive him for that, far less his other, better known, traits.

[nothstine]

Absolutely right about Joementum. For reasons you mention [the Bushies were dirtier in 2000 than most people dreamed, and Al's been sounding a lot smarter in the last couple of years] I've mostly quit slamming Gore for handing the keys over to Junior in 2000.

But my forgiving thoughts won't mean much in the long run, because there's still a special circle in hell waiting for the man who elevated that weasel Lieberman to the national stage, where he would never have arrived on his own dubious merits.

bn

[Dave G.]

Bravo, Lance. Right out there with you on this.

[Kevin Wolf]

Good pair of posts, Lance. Though it depresses me to think of the sort of people we're dealing with. With this cast of characters it's a wonder the government hasn't collapsed of its own dead weight.

Lieberman is without doubt one of the worst politicians to emerge during these horrific Bush years.

[Jim]

Holdie Lewie makes a point that's been driving me nuts for years: I am so sick of the Confederate states having some sort of veto power in presidential politics--to say nothing of the House and the Senate. I have no solution, of course, just wanted to get that off my chest.

One other thing that bugs me though is lefties/liberal/dems/progressives blaming Gore and Kerry for Bush. To paraphrase a certain well-known sociopath, you campaign with the electorate you have, not the electorate you wish you had. If the American people had the sort of intelligence and maturity assumed by the Constitution--or maybe not assumed, considering the Electoral College--the candidacy of GWB would have never been taken any more seriously that Dan Quayle's or Steve Forbes'.

Okay, thanks, I feel better now. Still no solutions, but I can go walk my dog now.

[Lance]

Jim, Holdie, we shouldn't forget that tens of millions of Southerners voted for John Kerry.

[Molly, NYC]

Lieberman should change parties, not just because he's a GOP kiss-ass, but because, while many Republicans think he's okay (which I suppose has been his goal in taking the positions he does), I don't know many Democrats who don't despise him.

[The Heretik]

Well said, LM. Twice. Twice.

[harry near indy]

lance, i bet the majority of kerry's southern votes came from blacks.

i never underestimate the appeal the gop has to bigots who want to return the negroes to a subserviant place in society.

they are old bigots, too -- folks in their 70s and 80s who sure than that martin luther king was an agitator.

and it's a rule of thumb that the older you get, the more likely you are to vote.

the boomers? honky, please! i know enough of them who dislike blacks.

it might be the generation coming up -- the folks in their teens and 20s, like my nephews and nieces -- who finally bury the black-white antagonisms that have haunted the u.s. since colonial days.

that's where i'm putting my hope.

[mac macgillicuddy]

"Someday they're going to erect a statue to me in this town!"

"Well, don't start posing for it now!"

[Campaspe]

Lieberman, yes, but the only people who like him are Republicans anyway. I was particularly aggrieved when he used his nomination to trash Clinton for--what, exactly? Lack of sexual probity? Gosh, how very crucial THAT is to the presidency.

But I also feel unbelievably intense bitterness toward Ralph Nader and anyone in a swing state who voted for the man. Every time I see Nader swearing that there is no difference between the two major parties I get violent impulses no lady should have.

[daveminnj]

i love bill as much as the rest of you-
and i know that al ran a poor campaign, but you're underestimating the difficulty of gore's embracing the clinton legacy, and i think you're letting bill off much too easily.
1)only twice in the previous 175 years had a sitting vice president won election to succeed a sitting two-term president. in both cases (van buren and bush,sr) the veep
had effectively taken over day-to-day operations of the government. also in each
case, the president (jackson and reagan, had amiably receded and was granted, deservedly or not, an affectionate veneration
by a good chunk of the population. bill is
many things-but venerable is not one of them. a far more relevant comparison is
eisenhower in 1960-resentment,competition
and unconscious belittling. and look how that cost nixon in that election.

2)clinton encouraged and relished a cult of
personality at the expense of the democratic party as a whole, and of al gore in particular. remember triangulation. so many times he left gore to do the cleaning
up (remember gore after the impeachment,out on the white house lawn, having to say that clinton would be remembered as one of the great presidents-
you could tell right then he was forced into a corner that he couldn't escape from and that many wouldn't forgive). this is a
slightly silly comparison- but in the godfather, no one could be angry at don corleone. the second-in-command, the consigliere, got the blame. that's understandable, but it makes the leader teflon, and the number two velcro.

3)clinton, the perpetual adolescent,misunderstand (or willfully
ignored) the language of southern baptist's
sin and redemption, and again gore was forced to pay the price. all clinton had
to do, after he escaped conviction, was to say,hey-i messed up big-time, and there is no excusing it,the responsibility is mine, and redemption comes from god. and then he needed to say gore wasn't to blame for HIS
mistakes, but was indespensible to the clinton administration's accomplishments. AND THEN HE NEEDED TO RECEDE INTO THE BACKGROUND. instead, at the convention, he hogged the camera, and made gore's claim
"i am my own man" seem like a betrayal.

again, clinton saying nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah is understandable, given his curious
self-absorption- but it denied gore the chance to create healthy distance. and, truthfully, if clinton had cleared the air better beforehand, gore might not have made the historic error of nominating lieberman.

4)of course gore needed clinton's
help- in the south, in the rocky mountain states, in new hampshire- but i wonder if
clinton really wanted gore to win. being the vice-president is a bloody business and
there is a great deal of image refurbishing
necessary in the year or two before the veep's own election-yet i recall anonymous
and on the record interviews, by clinton or his surrogates- undercutting gore's campaign from april onward. including that
timeless character slam from clinton that gore was an introvert and more suited to being a university professor. what i'm saying is there were three levels of drag
on gore from clinton in 2000:
the usual imcumbent fatigue of a two-term administration.
the constant scandals. and yes, i know most of it was bull****, but it was there,
and clinton did NOTHING to help insulate gore.
clinton's own pathological need to be the center of attention.

i agree that were so many accomplishments
of the clinton-gore administration that gore did not capitalize on- and that these
are the failures of an ungifted politician.
but clinton WAS a gifted politician, the most gifted we've seen in two generations-
and yet he couldn't stop himself from sabotaging gore at every step of the way.

it makes me wonder if he really wanted a legacy.

[Jim]

another point to be made about "Gore should have won in a landslide": as I recall, in June of 2000, before the conventions, Bush had a huge lead, more than 25 points, wasn't it? People were sick of Clinton--the Clenis shouldn't have mattered but it did--and Gore's "I stand here tonight at my own man" probably closed the gap. Clinton was a good campaigner, and probably could have delivered Arkansas if he had been used more effectively, but Gore did do some good for himself.