Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

2008: The Case Against Al Gore

After laying out the reasons why former Vice President Al Gore should run for the nation's top office earlier this week (and receiving a massive amount of feedback), we tackle the other side of the equation -- why Gore shouldn't run.

Don't Al Don't
The case against Al Gore boils down to one word: electability.

Would a new Al Gore presidential candidacy be doomed to failure? Above, the former veep speaks at the Jeddah Economic Forum last weekend in Saudi Arabia. (Reuters)

In our conversations about Gore and his potential candidacy over the past week or so, one rival campaign pointed us to a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. One of the survey's question was "Would [fill in the blank] make a good president?" Just 34 percent said Gore would be a good president compared to 60 percent who said he would not. By way of comparison, 60 percent of those tested thought former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would make a good president -- the highest mark for any of those tested. Half of those sampled thought New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president compared to 47 percent who thought she wouldn't. Gore's ratings were only better than entertainer Oprah Winfrey (24 percent said she would be a good president), Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy (23 percent), New York Gov. George Pataki (15 percent), entrepreneur Donald Trump (11 percent) and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (11 percent).

That poll encapsulates establishment Democrats' fears about a Gore candidacy. They see him as too easily caricatured by Republicans -- as both a far-left liberal and a flip-flopper on key issues -- to consider him seriously viable in 2008.

Let's unpack the caricatures one by one.

First, that Gore is a liberal. The Gore naysayers argue that since losing the 2000 presidential race to President Bush, Gore has become the poster boy for and other liberal groups that they believe are outside of the mainstream of American society. Two examples (of recent vintage) are often cited.

The first is a recent speech by Gore in Saudi Arabia in which he alleged that America had committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The Gore remarks generated a litany of criticism. Orlando Sentinel columnist Kathleen Parker concluded a column catsigating Gore by noting: "Surely even the Saudis see the true picture -- that Al Gore is a bitter politician who, sadly, seems to be one slice short of a loaf these days."

The second came last month when Gore gave a speech on the Bush Administration's domestic wiretapping program. In the address, Gore alleged that Bush had broken the law "repeatedly and insistently" and called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the spying program. Republicans responded almost immediately with a research document detailing past Gore statements -- led by a quote from Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt that said "Al Gore's incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America."

The other major caricature of Gore that has Democrats hesitant and fearful of a re-run national candidacy is his susceptability to the charge of flip-flopping.

That same RNC release cites several past Gore comments that seem supportive of using any and every tool at the American government's disposal to fight terrorism. "Hear me well -- we will fight the reckless violence of terrorism and we will never yield to terrorism, ever," Gore said in 1999 -- as quoted by the RNC document.

One Democratic operative who has closely followed Gore's career argues that Gore's long public record often conflicts with itself. The source notes that Gore came to the Senate from Tennessee as a moderate-minded Southerner (he voted for the first Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s) but his political persona has taken on several more iterations since then. Those changes -- from a moderate New Democrat to a liberal populist -- have left many in the party confused about just what Gore really believes and fearful that any attempt by him to re-emerge on the national scene would be met with regular and repeated taunts of flip-flopping by Republicans.

Keep in mind too that the flip-flopper charge is seen by Democrats as the single most damaging charge leveled by Republicans against Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign. During the race, GOPers made sure every voter in a battleground state was familiar with Kerry's "[I] actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," remark.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 16, 2006; 9:25 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: HRC's Donor Day
Next: Democrats Revive Soft Money Efforts


Cool site. Thanks! Id real estate Pharmacy online

Posted by: Pharmacy online | August 27, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Cool site. Thanks. Id real estate Pharmacy online

Posted by: Pharmacy online | August 27, 2006 2:51 AM | Report abuse

Very good site. Thanks! Id real estate Pharmacy online

Posted by: Pharmacy online | August 26, 2006 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Very good site. Thanks:-) marvelon

Posted by: marvelon | August 23, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

auhwqctp denamuvkh jmvqfobiz axnow tgdp ecaox dzptm

Posted by: epifa egirl | August 21, 2006 5:05 AM | Report abuse

yijgutfxl skudtvxw pzwrdht atqh scoprtvlq sumdzokth yvzdiural

Posted by: csytvrfxz fakyws | August 21, 2006 5:05 AM | Report abuse

With two minutes before closing time, I have to say, noticed Al Gore said he's running? And his earlier comments about American a political version of Napster....weird...our Democracy needs attention to VOTING TRUTH and netting Democracy.

Regarding Gore, I was a fan before Clinton happened. To Gore, I will note, it was disappointing to see an emphasis on the Stock Market and watching Clinton signing what were they, Executive Orders as he left on the Environment with Al Gore in the background.

Well...time is always of the essence...

I am a Nader fan, likely forever, and very dedicated to one message he proved...people were being told who to vote for instead of voting for who they thought was BEST. Affirmative voting is not restricted to the status quo, especially when the Current Pres gets a 60% disapproval for the majority of current issues.

If we were getting Nader results with Nader as president BACKED by an active supportive and involved citizenry, at a majority level, we would have environmental protection and peace orientation as a guaranteed priority.

Posted by: Elizabeth Ellis | April 20, 2006 10:58 PM | Report abuse

I didn't vote for Gore in 2000 and I don't support him now. However, he recent speeches are marks in his favor, not against. The president DID break the law and we have become torturers. If only the MSM would cover these stories rather than the talking points Rove gives them. I'm not sure what one slice short of a loaf means, (probably signs of a poor columnist) but as for Saudi Arabia, last time I saw Chimpy with a Saudi they were holding hands and playing kissy face. So someone tell me why it is okay for Bush to cozy up to the Saudis, but not Gore?

Posted by: Greg in NY | March 16, 2006 8:39 PM | Report abuse

One does enjoy this game: picking presidential candidates. Actually Al is highly electable. In fact many think he really won in 2000, if he didn't there is no dispute that he collected a majority of the votes. He actually would be pretty formidable I think. He has participated in three national presidential campaigns, he has run a government, he has loosened up since 2000, the grass roots love him. And by 2008 just being the un Republican might be enough. If the Republicans don't field McCain or Giuliani then they probably don't have a viable candidate given the current weariness with Republicans which is going to get worse over the next two and a half years when at some point there is going to be an economic slowdown as the Republican fiscal policies come home to roost. It's way too early to write off Al, just as it is way too early to write off Hilary. I don't buy the unelectability angle. If the country is suffering from advanced Bush fatigue, don't underestimate the American taste for novelty, or all those middle of the road Republican women who would be very happy to show men what a woman can do, this country is a matriarchy after all. This also raises the Condi issue. She would be murdered by Hillary in a no holds barred national campaign in which she has zero experience.

Posted by: John | March 16, 2006 7:27 PM | Report abuse

For Doctur Complex (and before her/him Croatoan):

A wider question is how often a former loser has been renominated at all. Besides Nixon in 1968, since 1900 there's only Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and William Jennings Bryan in 1900 and 1908. What all these men had in common was a very strong position of respected leadership within their parties. (Yes, Democrats, that's true of Nixon; yes, Republicans, it's true of Bryan.)

Question, therefore: in terms of this sort of recognition and support, is Gore up there with Stevenson? Some comments up above certainly suggest that old-line Establishment Liberal Democrat loyalty, but not many.

Nixon's success in 1968, as I remember, was due (1) to his own political skills, (2) to Democrat disarray over Vietnam, (3) to third-party candidate George Wallace, whose appeal to populist Democrats (there were more back then) may have given Nixon his winning pluralities.

If this shows anything, it is that to get another nomination, losers have to be special, and to win the election, not only special but lucky.

Posted by: Kakuzan | March 16, 2006 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris Cillizza,

I wish you had a political orientation scale so that we could see where a candidate stood or start using the term “moderate”. Just using the terms “liberal” and “conservative” is sometimes not very informative. A “moderate liberal” and “moderate conservative” candidate could be almost identical where as another two could be opposites. It would be most refreshing to see the main stream media once again use the term “moderate”. Is that possible in the 2008 election?

If I’m not mistaken it was Karl Rove that wanted the main stream media to use only “liberal” and “conservative” and cease using moderate, please don’t fall for that manipulation, start using “moderate”.

Thank You

Posted by: Jamal | March 15, 2006 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Ooops...ok I correct myself before I have to shamedfacedly face the collective wrath...Richard Nixon.

Anybody else do it?

How did Nixon succeed?

Any parallels to be drawn?

Posted by: Doctur Komplex | March 15, 2006 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Everybody likes to ignore history.

I asked this question in a different Post forum once before. No one picked up on it. Thereby proving no-one is really thinking through the problem here.

Analyze this question. You can bet anyone running a campaign will.

"Has any American vice-president gained his party's Presidential nomination, lost the general election, and then at any time later re-gained his party's Presidential nomination and won the general election?"

I do not believe this has ever happened.

And if it has never happened, don't you think there are some REASONS why it has never happened?

If nobody out there wants to deal with the question, pass it on to George Will, he likes these kind of questions. Not that he's a deep thinker.

Posted by: Doctur Komplex | March 15, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

He's been out of the picture for 6 years now. If he sheds that controlled and cautious public persona without going over the deep end, Gore is a strong candidate. All that stuff in the past about flip flopping in the like is past. A new Al Gore for a new day.

Posted by: Matt Curewitz | March 15, 2006 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore is a great guy, one who would make anyone a great relative. I believe that he lost simply because he had a lousy campaign. His campaign manager didn't have the toughness and hard core national election credentials. His strategy of running away from Bill Clinton was short sighted if not naive. He ran away from a record that compared with Bush's record is a no brainer. That said, can he get elected? Yes! IF he chooses the right campaign manager and runs against the Bush Administration's record. The environment will be a much bigger issue this time than ever before. The world is heating up and the current course of energy consumption will doom the planet. I am scared that the damage done by oil consumption is too great to be overcome. No one knows!

Al Gore will win if he stresses his environmental record, knowledge, and offers a simple plan to convert our economy from domination by petroleum to a much cleaner and more domestic energy source. First, GM must come up with an engine that is not fired by combustion. Perhaps the electric engine could be modified to enable more power surge, when needed. Lighter materials than steel must be used somehow. I don't have the answer to that, but surely, there are some smart engineers who can figure this out. I don't care if they come from India or South Korea. The Japanese cars reflect some of this ingenuity already. So GM and Ford must lead the way agressively. The bottom line will be enhanced in twenty years or so. We need to get away from the short term mentality of always rewarding the stock holders. If they object, let them move to another part of the world. This is America and the automobile is an American invention. We need to look 20 years down the road, because over 40 years, the Japanese have been gradually taking over the marketplace. Al Gore would be a natural leader of this movement to Save The Planet.

When Bush took over, Clinton-Gore left him a $3 trillion surplus. It only took Bush 2 years to screw that away. This is a stupid man who stole the 2000 election. Remember Katherine Harris? Remember the Governor named Bush? Florida still suffers from the Bush effect. Our economy is driven by the housing construction business and nothing else. We lose agricultural land everyday to housing. This house of cards is all going to come crashing down as is our national economy. Sooner rather than later. So Gore should run on the economical record that he helped build with Bill Clinton.

All Bush does every day is use the threat of terrorists to justify his lies. Cheney is a loose cannon with a very scary secretive mentality. At least, in 8 years as the Vice President, Al Gore didn't shoot someone with a shot gun!!! The damage done by Hurricane Katrina, and our horrible response to it and the victims, far surpasses the damage done by 9/11. Not surprisingly, the dumbfounded look of Bush at hearing the news of both should be campaign fodder. This terrorist threat, while real, is being fueled unnecessarily every day that we remain in Iraq. Al Gore can win by developing an exit strategy for Iraq. He needs to push to have the Defense contractors and their insider counterparts within the Bush Administration investigated for fraud. Haliburton must pay back all of the overcharges, yet they continue to win large massive federal contracts for Iraq and other work. Al Gore is an honest man and we need honest leadership. Bush is not an honest leader.

Finally, Al Gore can win if he comes out with a strategy to limit the massive and daily occurrence of corruption in Washington, DC. He can link Abramoff to the Republicans in power, including Bush himself! How can Cheney not be indicted for giving Libby authority to release classified documents? Al Gore can testify to the Republicans in Congress trying to impeach Bill Clinton for getting head in the White House while the Republicans continue to commit serious offenses today, which could be criminal in nature. Gore could be the poster boy for anti-corruption in the 2008 elections. The American people want honest leadership and someone to deal with the environment. Bush lacks the credibility to speak about America being addicted to oil. The Bush family's ties to the Saudis MUST be investigated. Why is it that the press has forgotten about the private planes taking Saudis out of America immediately following 9/11 attacks?

America needs Al!

Posted by: Displaced Floridian | February 21, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE nominate Al Gore. 4 more years (and probably 8 more, since you Dems will need some extra time to recover from the fiasco that is another Gore run) has never been so easy.

One question : Since all you dems think everyone in the mainstream agrees with you on most issues, why have there been SO FEW Democrats elected President in the last 50 years??? LOL, please, keep thinking your ideas are shared by a majority of Americans... that's your party's biggest and most consequential mistake

Try winning an election... ever... LMAO

Posted by: We Want Gore | February 21, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Nothing to do with this topic really just came accross it while doing some research so i'm posting it on all of the threads i've been writing on:

Funny how the rePIGlicans claim to be tougher on national security than democrats huh? Saxby chambliss takes the cake.

Posted by: Ohio guy | February 18, 2006 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Regarding Iraq, I've never actually heard any explanation for why it posed more of threat - and thus justified our actions - more so than regimes we knew and know have nuclear and/or biological weapons. Given the current threat posed by both Iran and N. Korea, not to mention S. Arabia, whose government continues to fund schools that teach that the US should be destroyed, I've just never understood why Iraq jumped to the top of our threat list even assuming they had WMD. Above and beyond whether Bush manipulated intelligence, I've consistently thought the presence of these other threats made going to war a poor decision...

Posted by: Colin | February 17, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I do know that the Bush administration officials willfully lied about the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Anytime they were criticized by a former official (such as Paul O'Neil, etc.) they went on a "smear" campaign against him. It seems that whoever put up the previous post is "assuming" that Clarke was not correct with very little basis. It is a matter of record that the Bush administration saw no urgency in the threat posed by Osama before 9/11. I also know that polling shows that a huge number of Americans believe that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. We know that isn't true. Yet we invaded Iraq, with little justification from a terrorist angle.

Posted by: Jeremy | February 17, 2006 1:43 PM | Report abuse

you assume his comments are correct. that he predicted and stated everything he says that he did. that may be a stretch. He also said that Saddam had definite ties to Osama at one point.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Clarke was a "disgruntled hack." But when you are a Cassandra accurately warning about an impending disaster with nobody listening to you, it must be infuriating. The Bush administration seemed to try to smear Clarke's character more than trying to debate the merits of his positions.

Posted by: Jeremy | February 17, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Richard Clarke is a disgruntled hack. He made himself out to seem like some kind of hero with everything he said.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse


I guess we can agree to disagree then. I don't know which force is more polarizing: Bush or some Democrats and far left that seem to hate him. I mean, he gets compared to Nazis. That is just ridiculous. Bush certainly has not been as central as he could be on some issues. I also guess we'll have to disagree on the Bush lying issue. I don't believe he knowingly manipulated anything. Tenet told him it was a slam dunk Iraq had WMD - hard not to believe your DCI. I guess that issue is still breathing. Some are saying that WMDs were moved to Syria.

Posted by: aj | February 17, 2006 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I think it is a very mistaken notion to think that Republicans are "stronger" on national security than Democrats. Despite suggestions for increased spending on inspection of foreign cargo and other domestic intititives proposed by many observers (even Democrats in Congress), the Bush administration has obstructed such proposals. Instead the Department of Homeland Security funds have been treated as a source of pork-barrel projects, where low-risk areas (like Wyoming) are given as much money per-capita has high-risk areas such as New York.

I specialize in studying domestic policy, however even in foreign affairs, it seems to me that Bush has been woefully misguided in his priorities. According to Richard Clarke, who is the one Washington official who accurately understood the peril enmanating from Osama bin Laden, the Clinton administration at least made some efforts to slow the growing power of Osama. Clarke also said that during the approximately eight months that Bush was in office, his administation did absolutely nothing in his efforts against Osama, despite repeated warnings from Clarke, internal memos, etc.

I supported the invasion of Aghanistan, which seemed to be an appropriate response to terrorism, but never the invasion of Iraq where the administration seeemed to slyly link Sadaam's regime with the tragic events of 9/11. This miilitancy was not supported by and has alienated most of the world community, will cost the American taxpayer a bundle, leave us less able to deal with Iran which was buffered by Iraq, cost many Americans soldiers their lives, and perhaps most damaging has created such hostility against America that it is very easy for the terrorists to recruit more members to engage in nefarious activities.

I know Karl Rove accuses Democrats of pre-9/11 thought; I think he has is completely wrong in his assertions.

Posted by: Jeremy | February 17, 2006 1:06 PM | Report abuse


Again, I think both parties do a pretty poor job of representing where most people are on a whole host of issues (somewhere in the middle of the two parties platforms). That being said, I honestly can't think of another president who has polarized the country more than Bush. I didn't vote for the guy in 2000, but I honestly hoped he was going to govern from the center and try to unite the country. Whether you like the guy or not, he certainly hasn't done that.

As far as Bush vs. Clinton lying and democrats having ethics problems too, I don't condone any of that kind of behavior. And note, when Rostenkowski and then Speaker Foley had their ethics problems their districts voted them out of office and control of Congress switched. I think that reaction was justified then and is again now - Democrats had grown corrupt after 50 years in office and I think Republicans have in the last 10 years.

Oh, and about Bush and Clinton. Clinton's testimony and behavior were repugnant - no argument here. But to suggest that there's no evidence Bush manipulated some intelligence leading up to our invasion of Iraq is less than candid. I don't pretend for a second (or believe) that the administration went to war without thinking it was the the right thing to do. I don't think the guy is evil or that he doesn't love his country. But I do question the wisdon of that choice and I think they did manipulate the facts to get support for the action they thought was appropriate.

Posted by: Colin | February 17, 2006 11:26 AM | Report abuse


No conversation? Then what do you call your paragraphs. I said that I never criticized Clinton for the economy back then. Why would I? My problem is that the Democrats are polarizing the country, and not using factual arguments to back that up. Bush lied blah blah blah. Where is the evidence? Clinton lied on record. But he still did a lot of good things as President. I do honestly believe he let Osama escape, but I was merely responding to someone who says Bush was to blame for 9/11. That poster also didn't seem to understand that all of Congress does stupid things? Rostenkowski and Traficant have been/are currently in jail for their acts while in Congress. Cunningham should be.

Posted by: aj | February 17, 2006 11:06 AM | Report abuse

AJ - out of curiosity, is there anything that republicans are responsible for at all? There's certainly enough blame to go around regarding 9-11, the katrina response, and ethics problems. Frankly, I'm dissatisfied with the way both parties currently operate in Washington. But judging from your posts, it seems like anything bad that has occurred is the sole responsibility of democrats (regardless of the fact that republicans have controlled every level of government for over 6 years)and anything good that has happened over the last 10 years is b/c of republicans (Clinton gets no credit for anything that happened under him, for example -- just blamed for 9-11).

Also, I haven't actually noticed any constructive posts on your part - mainly just differently phrased versions of "democrats are weak on national defense." Unless you feel like the current administration's policies regarding the fight on terrorism (which EVERYONE wants to be successful, incidentally)are PERFECT, why is it that any questioning of those policies are labeled as being "weak?" Seems like we should really be able to discuss, in a civil manner, the choices the country has to make on this and other important issues. Your comments don't really seem to allow much room for such a conversation.

Posted by: Colin | February 17, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

In my second to last paragraph, I should have said people tend "not to vote on issues, but more on style and feelings" than the specific policy-issues at hand.

Posted by: Jeremy | February 17, 2006 10:54 AM | Report abuse


I'm afriad you're mistaken on a number of points. Most significantly about health-care. Republicans (admittedly with the aid of a now alomst extinct species--southern Democrats)thwarted Harry Truman's efforts for national health care in the late 40s and early 50s. President Clinton put a lot of political capital into trying to make sure everyone was entitled to health care after he was elected. The result: complete Republican obstructionism which helped result in the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Perhaps Democrats are are responsible for impotence, but they should not be blamed for not trying to resolve the health care crisis. Their political fortunes sunk on that issue (as well as successfully passing a budget which helped to resolve many budget difficulties, but Republicans successfully labeled as the greatest tax incerease in history, etc.)

As far as lobbying goes, yes, Democrats did get lobbying benefits when they controlled Congress, but they never had a K-Street project and they always allowed Republicans to hire their own committee staff members.

The Republican passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit was a pure power play. The Republicans abused the Conference Committee by shutting all but the most pliant Democrats out of negotiations. Tom Scully would not let the chief Medicare Actuary testify in front of COngrewss about the true costs of the program. Congress thought the program would cost $395 billion over ten years--when the actual predicted numbers were over $500 billion. In reality, of course, the program will cost much more. Even then, to get the vote passed in the House, the vote was allowed to go over three hours longer than the usual fifteen minute limit, before Tom DeLay, et al strong-armed enough Republicans to vote for the bill. To get the result of a vote changed in the 1980s, Democrat Speaker Jim Wright let the fifteen minute clock go over the time limit by ten minutes. An outraged Republican minority whip named Dick Cheney said this was the lowest form of behavior he had ever seen on the House floor. I don't remember Cheney being outraged with the Republican majoritiy absuing the time-clock on a much more substantive vote in 2003. In fact, I remeber he bragged about it in his debate with John Edwards.

I do agree that Democrats may suffer electoral losses at the polls. Gerrymandering in House districts, a natural concentration of Democratic votes in urban areas, and states with a low population bias tending to vote more for Republican candidates, seems to put the Republicans in the driver's seat for both House and Senate elections. It is unfortunate, and despite what the politcal scientists say, I don't really believe too heavily in rational-choice theory. I think many pople tend to vote on issues rather than the specific policy-issues at hand.

I don't think I have a "blatant disreagard for the facts" or am particularly "uninformed." I do have very different policy preferences from aj, but I don't think that warrants in hurling insults.

Posted by: Jeremy | February 17, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Mr Cillizza,

You neglected to include the following reasons in "the case against Al Gore." Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and Richard Cohen all continue to have prominent columns in leading newspapers. Assuming that they would reprise their "clowning" (TM The Daily Howler) about Gore prior to the 2000 election, then this would be a serious negative for an Al Gore candidacy.

Posted by: Lame Man | February 17, 2006 10:14 AM | Report abuse

oops. that was to Jeremy

Posted by: aj | February 17, 2006 8:37 AM | Report abuse

My, my how uninformed you are. Democrats held Congress for 30 years and helped create the healthcare situation. Read below. Democrats get more from lobbyists. Wake up. Or, better yet, stay that way. Your blatant disregard for the facts and thoughts that Democrats can never do anything wrong will result in continue Republican dominance of National elections.

Democrats have taken more money from lobbyists than Republicans during the past 15 years, according to an independent analysis of campaign contributions.
Since the 1990 election cycle, Democrats have accepted more than $53 million from lobbyists while Republicans have taken more than $48 million for their election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Data provided by the nonpartisan group also shows that when Democrats controlled Congress in the early 1990s, they consistently hauled in more than 70 percent of the town's lobbyist money. The group is a leading critic of Texas Republican Rep. Tom DeLay's ties to lobbyists.
"When the Democrats were in charge, they were getting an incredibly higher amount of lobbyist money compared to Republicans," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "Now that the tables are turned there is parity between the two parties."
Last year, for instance, Republicans took in 55 percent of the lobbyist money, which roughly corresponds to their majority share in Congress.
Mr. Nick said the figures "take the wind out of Democrat sails" for their charge that Republicans have ushered in a "culture of corruption" that breeds extensive ties to lobbyists.
Democrats do not dispute the data, but accuse Republicans of operating at the behest of the lobbyists who fund their campaigns.

Posted by: Jeremy | February 17, 2006 8:35 AM | Report abuse

hippie, put down the bong and wake up to reality. How many Americans died in your 2 examples? 0. Also, it was a compound that housed many Americans, not the Embassy.

Posted by: aj | February 17, 2006 8:29 AM | Report abuse

hippie, put down the bong and wake up to reality. How many Americans died in your 2 examples? 0. Also, it was a compound that housed many Americans, not the Embassy.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2006 8:29 AM | Report abuse

BigB, your ignorance is quite impressive. Clinton had Osama many times but failed to act beacause he, like many Democrats, are weak on National Security. Les Aspin as Defense Secretary? Come on. Bin Laden's popularity grew unabated during Clinton's 8 year regime. He is easily more to blame for 9/11 then a President who had been in office for 8 and a half months. I think the wool is over your eyes covering your Democratically rosy glasses.

Posted by: aj | February 17, 2006 8:27 AM | Report abuse

how about the fact that America saw go off his rocker after his loss in 2000??

Posted by: savedbythebell | February 17, 2006 8:22 AM | Report abuse

A final note. It's interesting to find out that Bridge's reason (given in one of his final interviews) for not continuing in his Sea Hunt role, is the Standard one, for why meaningful reform is hardly ever accomplished in Washington, corporate influence or veto power over what's "possible":

'When we finished the fourth year they wanted to keep on with it....I said, ÔOK, if we change the format a little bit....There's a lot to be said about what's happening to our ocean, big companies polluting it with their oil and all the raw garbage that's being spilled in there. A lot of villains out there have suits on, that don't look like your regular villain, and Mike Nelson could tackle that kind of situation. It could be just as exciting and maybe do something about clearing up the mess that we're putting in the ocean.' One of our sponsors was Standard Oil, so Ivan didn't think that was a good idea.'

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | February 17, 2006 5:34 AM | Report abuse

Another reason for supporting Gore, "fiddling while Greenland melts," from today's Washington Post:

Greenland's glaciers are melting into the sea twice as fast as previously believed, the result of a warming trend that renders obsolete predictions of how quickly Earth's oceans will rise over the next century, scientists said yesterday.

For those who enjoyed "Sea Hunt" in their childhood, this provides you with a good future opportunity to don your wet suits "for real" and play Lloyd Bridges as "Mike Nelson" (or at least your children or grandchildren), if you support the smug business as usual attitude for what passes for political leadership and punditry here in Washington. Early adoptors might don their wet or pressure suits early and contribute any treasure they find at the bottom of the sea to the "Gore in '08" Committee, links listed above.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | February 17, 2006 4:58 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2006 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Gore 2008! | February 17, 2006 3:01 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: We want Gore | February 17, 2006 2:58 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Or visit this website | February 17, 2006 2:57 AM | Report abuse

Al Gore is Running;

Look at this website:

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2006 2:56 AM | Report abuse

"We liberals need to keep coming at them with plain-spoken facts"

That has to be the absolute funniest thing I've read in a long time. Sure, keep it coming...just don't throw me in the briar patch.

Posted by: Smells like liberal spirit | February 16, 2006 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Wake up. The Republicans want Hillary to run; that's why Bush said she would be a "formidable" opponent. They know they can beat her. And she won't make too much of a fuss when they spin the propaganda against her and rig the election machinery to bring her down. She plays by their rules.

It's time the Democrats stop letting the Republicans choose their candidates for them. "Electablility"? That's just the scale a spineless Democrat uses to measure a candidate's willingness to bow under the pressure of the Republican talking points. The Republicans will talk. It seems the more they fear a candidate, the more they pull out the stops to smear that candidate, so I suggest a new scale to use in choosing the Democratic candidate--the smear scale. If the Republicans put most of their efforts into bad-mouthing a candidate, then that's our guy. They tend to go after truth-tellers, like Gore and Howard Dean. Republicans don't like too many facts obscuring their agenda; that's why they got rid of the Fairness Doctrine.

Big money is doing the talking. Big money owns the media and the Republican Party; the Republican party is the party of rule by the corporations for the corporations. Big money uses the flag and Jesus--"God bless America"--as its official logos to legitimize itself. Democrats used to stand for rule by the people for the people, but, with Washington awash in money, they too have leaned to the other side, the fascist, big money side.

As in fascism, the big corporations now have a strangle hold on our government, and they know how to use all the tools at their disposal to control the people. They are good at using propaganda to instill fear--of terrorists and a punishing god--and hate--of gays, Muslims, Frenchmen, Democrats, etc. Big money's front men, Bush, Cheney, et al, use that propaganda to rouse the rabble into angry, flag-waving, cross-bearing, attacks on gays, Muslims, Frenchman, Democrats, etc. As Bush said, they have to keep repeating things in order to "catapult the propaganda." Sometimes the truth does slip out.

Liberals need to choose their candidates and vote based on integrity. Who is it that is best at truth-telling? Gore and Dean are truth-tellers. They are the candidates chosen by the people for the people. Gore won the popular vote--and the election--in 2001; Dean had huge popular support and would have done well in 2004, but the DNC joined the Republicans in smearing him for fear that he did not have "electability." The DNC thought Kerry had "electability."

After Dean was taken down by our own side, Dean's popular support joined into a wider push against Bush. But we were no match against Republican chicanery; the election was too thoroughly rigged. Kerry won. But Kerry was held by the money machine in Washington; he didn't even put up a fight for the little guy, even with the overwhelming evidence of fraud and voter intimidation in Ohio. But Kerry had "electability."

Since the Republicans have big money, big media propaganda, and big corporation, rigged election machinery on their side, it doesn't make sense to play according to their "electability" rules. We liberals need to keep coming at them with plain-spoken facts. Facts to Republicans are like the water to the Wicked Witch of the West in Oz. "I'm melting, I'm melting."

Gore for 2008.

Posted by: anno domini | February 16, 2006 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I think Al Gore is the best candidate the Dems have for 2008. First of all, you might remember that the national mood during the 2000 election was "it doesn't matter which candidate you vote for because they're exactly the same." History has proven that incredibly wrong, and I believe that a lot of people who voted for Bush in 2000 for that reason would love the chance to make-up for their mistake. Second, there's an awful lot of Clinton era nostalgia out there that Gore could capitalize on; probably even more so that Hillary herself.

And Chris, seriously. To act like a GOP press release quoting Gore saying that he'd do everything he could to stop terrorists somehow contradicts with his statement that Bush is breaking the law is just irresponsible. Do you really believe those statements contradict each other? Really? Cause if you don't then you shouldn't act like they do. Another case of 'balance' winning out over truth. Sad.

Posted by: JPS | February 16, 2006 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The real problem for any Democrat is that RNC talking points appear in the columns of "objective" political reporters like Chris. And this happens dozens of times in papers and television networks across the country.

Your analysis of what Gore can't win is that (1) He is liberal and (2) He told the truth about us torturing innocent Arabs could be applied to everyone to the left of Chuck Hagel. (In fact, I suspect it would apply to Hegel himself.) So, by the implication of this column, the only people who can win a general election are Republicans.

I'll admit that Kerry and Gore ran terrible campaigns. But would you not admit that when "objective" columnists such as yourself define electibility in this way, then any Democrat is going to have a hard time getting his message out?

You are a columnist for one of the world's most respected newspapers. When you resort to reporting stereotypes about a person, and then use that person's political opponents to reinforce those stereotypes, I believe you are not fairly meeting your responsibility to your readers. (And don't you get bored when you simply repeat conventional wisdom, or take the material for your columns from the powers that be in the DLC and the RNC?)

Now, in fairness to you, is Gore a liberal? Sure. Has he said things that are easy for the RNC to mock? Sure. But those things in and of themselves do not make him unelectable.

There are good reasons that a Gore presidency in 2009 in unlikely. But being liberal and being willing to state the obvious about the US torturing people in Iraqi and Cuban prisons, are not what will keep Gore out of the White House.

Posted by: Choska | February 16, 2006 6:01 PM | Report abuse

You're an MSM whore, Chris. Thanks for cementing that point with your lovely column.

Keep on whoring, you whore. The GOP loves you.

Posted by: John Kerry's Hair | February 16, 2006 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Dead(er) Horse | February 16, 2006 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Fox news Poll is as far as I had to read. I worked on an interview with Al back when he was the veep & he could talk and even think for himself. Quite a bright, strong character.

Posted by: ROOTHOGG | February 16, 2006 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I must say-- I'm sick of the flip-flopping displayed by Democrats in general when it comes to elections.

2000-- "Fix! Fix! Fix! Bush fixed the election... he didn't win the popular vote, just the right states! Revamp the Electoral College!"

2004-- "Who cares if he won the popular vote? No one in the "right" states voted for him. Give less power to the middle of America! Obviously only those on the coasts understand politics and what is best for America!"


Posted by: Argh | February 16, 2006 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Susan Collins is a 1st grade teacher out of her depth. I'm as worried about her running for president as I am that Martians will posess a Republican's body to take over the planet.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | February 16, 2006 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"You're assuming that Hillary's going to run, but she isn't. There is sufficient power as the federal Senator from New York to satisfy her"


You're KILLIN' me, Phil, just killin' me.

Posted by: VP_Warner | February 16, 2006 4:39 PM | Report abuse

BTW, mikem, you failed in your attempt to sound like a disappointed Democrat. I don't know a single Dem who thinks as you do. The Chinese temple? Please. What a non-scandal. Tell me, how do you feel about Bush deciding the 4th amendment to the Constitution is his for the breaking?

Posted by: Anaxamander | February 16, 2006 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Gore's philosophy is pretty consistent over time. Being for the Gulf War in the early 90's doesn't make one "conservative". Being against the current Iraq fiasco, which was clearly based on flimsy circumstantial evidence when we went, is not "liberal".

Al Gore is an honest, courageous man that I would be proud to have as President. George W. Bush is a weasely little caricature of a man next to him.

Dems who think Gore is a risk (and who also thought Dean a risk) fail to understand that the RNC will caricature any of them who go up against them. Countinuous sucking up to business interests and providing cover for a waste of human flesh like George W. Bush won't save them. If they are the opponent, they will have the guns turned on them.

Who has survived this? Al Gore. Who could survuive it again? Al Gore. I actually believe the media might have just enough shame over their treatment of him in 2000 to play a little bit more fairly with him this time.

But, I believe Al when he says he isn't going to run. It's a hell of a shame.

Posted by: Anaxamander | February 16, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris: What Gore and Kerry fail to realize is the fact they are has-beens. They both had their bite at the apple and lost. What Gore fails to realize is that for many of us party loyalists, his involvement in the Chinese temple scandal brought out during his candidacy, was one scandal too many for the Clinton/Gore administration. Similarly Clinton fails to realize that we forgave him once for the Flowers affair but then came Paula Jones and then Monica Lewinsky, in essence serving himself instead of the public. As for Kerry, besides the flip flopping, he succumb to the Republican barrage of the Swift boat debacle rather than staying above the fray. We really need someone that is above reproach, to adhere to a philosophy that not all Democrats are obsessed with the "tax and spend" mentality.

Posted by: mikem | February 16, 2006 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Unelectable? Didn't he win the popular vote in 2000?

I think if he had run in 2004, he would have had an excellent chance of winning. It's probably too late now.

Posted by: jf | February 16, 2006 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I've only read this column a couple times, but is it always so poorly argued?

Each question raised about Gore's electability (his speech in Saudi Arabia, his speech on wiretapping, his flip-flopping) gets "proven" by comments from the RNC and a Florida columnist that are nothing more than plain name-calling. ("bitter politician", "one slice short of a loaf", "incessant need to insert himself into the headlines of the day") Aside from the questionable search for insight into the electability of a Democrat from the RNC, Mr. Cizilla seems to be content reprinting the opposition's disdain rather than looking for any serious rebuttal to Gore's points or methods. Please! - on flip-flopping: "Gore comments that seem supportive of using any and every tool at the American government's disposal to fight terrorism. 'Hear me well -- we will fight the reckless violence of terrorism and we will never yield to terrorism, ever,' Gore said in 1999 -- as quoted by the RNC document." How does that say anything about the tools (much less "any and every tool") to be used?

Posted by: JK | February 16, 2006 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Delete all of these responses but Jeff's. He's dead on. The logical conclusion of this analysis is that the Democrats might as well pack it in and not bother nominating anyone, since no matter who the nominee is, he or she will be characterized by Republicans as a liberal flip-flopper.

Unless the nominee is Warner, who would be an inexperienced liberal, that will probably be a flip-flopper when given the chance.

Posted by: adam | February 16, 2006 2:39 PM | Report abuse does not consider itself out of the mainstream. It considers itself outside of the establishment. Those are very different things.

Take a look at their campaigns this year: Restoring open honest government with fair, accountable elections, defending a woman's right to choose, and changing the course in Iraq. These are mainstream issues that most polling shows that most american's support. MoveOn is very mainstream, they just aren't part of the bankrupt institutions and big-money special interests that brought us the disasters of Katrina and the Abramoff Scandal. Instead, they derive their support from grassroots, everyday, mainstream American citizens.

Posted by: Darren | February 16, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

What disingenuity? "there was a litany of criticism", FROM WHOM? I didn't read Al Gore's blasphemous remarks in any Washington Post Editorial, nor did I see it in the NYtimes. In the electronic media, only Fox News spoke on behalf of Americans in expressing their disgust at his anti-American comments in Saudi Arabia!

You're damn right Americans found it tasteless, but you and your fellow Post writers IGNORED THE STORY! Why?

If I could also digress, the same way you folks have kept a disturbing quiet about the ACLU's crusade against the US - See the ACLU's appearance on the BBC's newsnight video", then you have the effrontery to suggest who should run and who should not, when almost no democrat is standing up for us and our troops in arms way?

If I had my way, all incumbents in Washington should be forced to re-run for election this fall - ALL, and hopefully they'll all get their corrupt and incompetent cacases out of Washington into the real world.

Posted by: Adam | February 16, 2006 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Is it RC or RNC?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2006 2:31 PM | Report abuse

So RC when Republican politicians retire and are paid for their speeches, what do you call that? Fair wages? Only when retired Democrats get paid for their speeches you call that selling out for "30 pieces of silver". You guys really suck at this fair and balanced thing. Makes me sick.

Posted by: Marve | February 16, 2006 2:27 PM | Report abuse

ouch! I'm still dead here!

Posted by: still dead horse | February 16, 2006 2:27 PM | Report abuse

To go to Fox news or Kathleen Parker and ask about a Democrat is like going to a Holocaust survivor and asking an opinion about Hitler. The fact that both Parker and Fox said disparaging things about Gore has just raised him a few levels in my view of the candidates.

I didn't see much of a difference between gore and Bush in 2000. Boy was I wrong. Bringing "dignity back to the Whitehouse" was a subplot of the 2000 election. I think Gore would do just that in 2008.

As for calling into question Gore's analysis of world affairs: You've got to be kidding! When did it become a political crime to question policy based on a review of the facts? Perhaps Incurious George and the rest of the war criminals running our government could use a dose of critical thinking--Gore style.

Lastly, calling gore a flip-flopper. Come on man, you've drunk the GOP Kool Aid and it shows. Go back and review the campaign promises made by Bush. The EXACT opposite has happened from what he promised to do! Bush has been the biggest liar and incompetent person to ever sit in the Oval Office. That's a fact, Chris.

Posted by: Dennis Yuzenas | February 16, 2006 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Leslie, are you unaware of the fact that one must win a majority of electoral votes, not popular votes to win a presidential election in this country, or are you just stupid?

Posted by: RC | February 16, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I would never vote for Hillary, but at least she's loyal to her country and seems sincere in her misguided efforts to do what's right. For al-Gore, the price of his loyalty is apparently $200,000. Smells more like 30 pieces of silver.

Posted by: RC | February 16, 2006 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't really understand why people are confused by Gore's politics. I think the man has been radicalized by winning the presidential election but having the Supreme Court hand it to George W. Bush and by watching the destruction of the nation over the last five years. Do these confused people not understand the possibility of evolving or changing one's political beliefs, especially if one has been through a rather extreme experience? Do they not understand that a person who is now outside the political process may be freer to express what he really thinks than he was when he was an insider?
I think Gore would be an excellent president. However, I agree, most unfortunately, that Gore is not electible because the media would shred him to bits. He would be electible only if there were a populist groundswell in his favor that could overcome the media's negativity to all Democratic candidates in general, and to him specifically.

Posted by: Leslie | February 16, 2006 1:51 PM | Report abuse

HIllary Clinton is divisive, but one thing we learned from Bush's victories in 2000 and (especially) 2004 is that you can be divisive and win, as long as you get slightly over 50%. (Bush won--or "won"-with 47.9% in 2000 and won with 50.7% in 2004.)

Posted by: croatoan | February 16, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I think the point of this exercise was to portray some of the reasons Gore should not run, and doing so by illustrating some of the arguments that his opponents would make that might resonate. Basically, the other side of the column on Why Gore Should Run?

Yet, the responses here seem to focus on refuting that which is obvious - the points made by the author. He has already presented the other side of the argument - essentially, you are arguing with no one.

My instinct is that even a half decent Republican candidate would trounce Gore. The electoral situation is heavily stacked against him - a southern Democrat who cannot win the south.

Time for someone else.

Posted by: Geez | February 16, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Nixon, running as an incumbent vice president, lost a close to Kennedy in 1960, then won in 1968.

Posted by: croatoan | February 16, 2006 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Dear aj,

YOur cavalier remarks just shows your ignorance and illustrates the type of people who support your party.

After the 93 attack Clinton prevented us from another foreign attack in the US, so what do you have to say about that (don't even try to mention the Embassy bombings in Africa b/c that will get you no where all I would have to say is the equivalent have died in Bush's Iraq war)

Maybe you should look into how unemployment is calculated. If you use the real number unembloyment is 6%. Also, you might want to talk to an economist who will tell you that the stock market is not a reliable factor in determining the state of the economy.

Also, you might also want to be sure you have money saved. As you are living with the wool over your eyes you seem to miss the DEBT that this country is racking up. Can you say tax increase. It will take about a generation to fix the problem that w has laid, all in the name of tax cuts for the wealthy.

Enjoy the wool because you will eventually have to take it off.

Posted by: BigB | February 16, 2006 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I find it hard to believe that Al Gore will decide to run for president again. I'm sure he is aware of the difficulties he must overcome, and will take that into account. As a result I feel that he would make more of a difference and impact if he were to take the part of a Ralph Nader. Not in the sense of the same political beliefs but rather working under the radar or working with multiple institutions.

Posted by: VaDemocrat | February 16, 2006 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I thought your Politics talk today was just a shameless commercial for The Fix. How calculating and clever but it's a bit controlling too. Lets see, shamelessly commercial, controlling - why talk about
Gore when you may be more qualified to speak about the Bush/Cheney administration?? But since you asked, I supported Gore and liked him but have two basic problems with him running again: 1) "Karena has nearly perfect political pitch" and I'm going to take my inexperienced daughter's polical advice over every experienced Democratic advisor in the Country and 2) the depression hiding disappearance after the election. I say win or lose like a mensch and get back on that horse right away, etc., etc. If you can't roll with the punches, the Presidency may not be for you. He should have been out fighting voting and election problems at a minimum. I loved his recent Bill Nelson support letter he send out recently. Now that's the Al I luved and voted for.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2006 1:14 PM | Report abuse

2006, 2007, 2008...15,800 days of Repu vitriol. Originality not being their forte, l5,800 more days of "flip-flop" and "liberal" filling the depleted ozone is not an uplifting thought. In the mean time the lemmings in the WH continue their march to the sea. I'm off to an ashram.

Posted by: felicity smith | February 16, 2006 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Chris, all I see and hear from Republicans are how bad the Democrats are, what losers they are, such flip floppers, etc., to which I say, seems the GOP is portraying themselves more than the Democrats...first THEY had to fix the 2000 election in order to make Bush president, and with the help of Diebold, bought the 2004 one...need I list all the scandals and lies and cover-ups perpetrated by this administration, not to mention the deaths of almost 2300 young American men and women, and tens of thousands horribly fondest wish is for the Democrats to stop playing nice, and play to win...with all the corruption in D.C. the DNC has a chance to win back Congress and the Senate, at which time, when we have the majority, we can IMPEACH Bush & Co. and get them out of our lives forever...

Posted by: Etty | February 16, 2006 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Jeff, nice name, I agree with you. But folks should know there are now two of us. I've been posting all along for Gore, so I'll add my Post identifier on future posts.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | February 16, 2006 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Before anyone votes for Guiliani perhaps he or she should talk to a New Yorker first. We can't stand him here.

Posted by: nyrunner | February 16, 2006 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, aj but you didn't hear about the attack on our embassy in Riyahd? When the Saudi guards ran and let the terrorists have the run of the place? That's just one example.

You probably didn't hear about our ship being attacked with a missile in Jordan, either.

Maybe Bush supporters have a selective memory, and we need to constantly remind them of the most basic facts.

And I think Al Gore learned his lesson from the 2000 campaign. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. We cannot afford to nominate someone who will play nice with these Republcian SOBs.

Posted by: cynical ex-hippie | February 16, 2006 12:54 PM | Report abuse

What a pointless analysis. What Chris Cillizza's point boils down to is that the Republicans will paint Gore, if nominated, as a flip-flopper and as an extreme liberal. I guess what he is implying is that we should nominate some other Democrat, and then the Republicans will hail him for his constancy and centrist views. Because the Republicans do that a lot.

The Republicans will trash whoever we nominate. So we might as well nominate someone who'll come into the race guns a'blazing. Sounds like Al Gore to me.

Posted by: Jeff | February 16, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

1) The people who didn't like Gore in 2000 aren't going to like him now.

2) The people who DID like Gore in 2000 (like me), but could not BELIEVE the stupidity of his campaign ("The people vs. the powerful") don't want to see him again. They feel he (and Shrum) blew their chance. Did he win technically--yes. SHOULD he have won decisively with a decent campaign? Yes.

3) So therefore, how would Gore win again?

Joe, a little substance and less posturing might have gotten Gore somewhere in 2000.

Posted by: Disillusioned | February 16, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse


Maybe so, maybe not. I think the vast majority of the militants will still find reasons to hate us and kill us. Their leasers maintain their power through xenophobia and demagoguery. They wouldn't give up those tools if we apologized for all the sins of humanity and each of us converted to Islam.

Posted by: Truth B Told | February 16, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Well said, Jeremy! Also I would add the environment is going down the tubes and the Democratic party needs to make that point as well during 2006 and 2008. I know Al Gore will make fixing the environment a priority.

Posted by: Jason | February 16, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse

One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change. I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future. The future will be better tomorrow. Our democracy, our constitutional framework is really a kind of software for harnessing the creativity and political imagination for all of our people. The American democratic system was an early political version of Napster. We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made. I stand by all the misstatements that I've made.

Posted by: Al Gore | February 16, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The Anti-Empire Report: Things you need to know before the world ends
By William Blum

How I Spent My 15 Minutes of Fame

In case you don't know, on January 19 the latest audiotape from Osama bin Laden was released and in it he declared: "If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book 'Rogue State,' which states in its introduction . . ." He then goes on to quote the opening of a paragraph I wrote (which appears actually in the Foreword of the British edition only, that was later translated to Arabic), which in full reads:

"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions -- including the awful bombings -- have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -– oddly enough -– a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90 percent and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions. There would be more than enough money. Do you know what one year of the US military budget is equal to? One year. It's equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

"That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

Within hours I was swamped by the media and soon appeared on many of the leading TV shows, dozens of radio programs, with long profiles in the Washington Post, and elsewhere. In the previous 10 years the Post had declined to print a single one of my letters, most of which had pointed out errors in their foreign news coverage. Now my photo was on page one.

Much of the media wanted me to say that I was repulsed by bin Laden's "endorsement." I did not say I was repulsed because I was not. After a couple of days of interviews I got my reply together and it usually went something like this: "There are two elements involved here: On the one hand, I totally despise any kind of religious fundamentalism and the societies spawned by such, like the Taliban in Afghanistan. On the other hand, I'm a member of a movement which has the very ambitious goal of slowing down, if not stopping, the American Empire, to keep it from continuing to go round the world doing things like bombings, invasions, overthrowing governments, and torture. To have any success, we need to reach the American people with our message. And to reach the American people we need to have access to the mass media. What has just happened has given me the opportunity to reach millions of people I would otherwise never reach. Why should I not be glad about that? How could I let such an opportunity go to waste?"

Celebrity -- modern civilization's highest cultural achievement -- is a peculiar phenomenon. It really isn't worth anything unless you do something with it.

The callers into the programs I was on, and sometimes the host, in addition to numerous emails, repeated two main arguments against me: 1) Where else but in the United States could I have the freedom to say what I was saying on national media?

Besides their profound ignorance in not knowing of scores of countries with at least equal freedom of speech (particularly since September 11), what they are saying in effect is that I should be so grateful for my freedom of speech that I should show my gratitude by not exercising that freedom. If they're not saying that, they're not saying anything.

2) America has always done marvelous things for the world, from the Marshall Plan and defeating communism and the Taliban to rebuilding destroyed countries and freeing Iraq.

I have dealt with these myths and misconceptions previously; like sub-atomic particles, they behave differently when observed. For example, in last month's report I pointed out in detail that "destroyed countries" were usually destroyed by American bombs; and America did not rebuild them. As to the Taliban, the United States overthrew a secular, women's-rights government in Afghanistan, which led to the Taliban coming to power; so the US can hardly be honored for ousting the Taliban a decade later, replacing it with an American occupation, an American puppet president, assorted warlords, and women chained.

But try to explain all these fine points in the minute or so one has on radio or TV. However, I think I somehow managed to squeeze in a lot of information and thoughts new to the American psyche.

Some hosts and many callers were clearly pained to hear me say that anti-American terrorists are retaliating against the harm done to their countries by US foreign policy, and are not just evil, mindless, madmen from another planet.[1] Many of them assumed, with lots of certainty and no good reason at all, that I was a supporter of the Democratic Party and they proceeded to attack Bill Clinton. When I pointed out that I was no fan at all of the Democrats or

Posted by: che | February 16, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Come on. The republicans accused Max Cleland of being a coward. The RNC will paint any candidate however they want.
As for Al Gore, he is really smart and would make a great president. However, he is not electable because he is awkward on TV. Honest Abe would'nt be electable today because of TV.
The presidency today is all in the packaging and has little to do with substance.

Posted by: Joe | February 16, 2006 12:24 PM | Report abuse

This blog is circleing the bowl. Instead of all the he said/she said and name calling, someone start talking about an issue.

Here's one: Al Gore is the self-proclaimed environmental candidate. He wrote a book, remember?

What would he do? Sign Kyoto? Would it get ratified? How would he choose between air pollution or nuclear waste?

Make this election about ideas, not about the past, not about the name calling, not about stereotyping the opposition as either rednecks or intellectual elites.

Come on folks! Let's hear some ideas . . .

Posted by: Truth B Told | February 16, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Kerry did an incredibly poor job in making that comment and explaining it. It wasn't a flip flop, the votes weren't on identical conditions for giving Bush the money. Kerry ran an incurably mediocre campaign in 2004. Democrats can only hope they learn from the fiasco (and 2000 and 1988) and make a better choice next time. 3 eminently winnable campaigns lost.

Posted by: mike g | February 16, 2006 12:09 PM | Report abuse


The country is in disarray. The Dow was higher under Clinton than it is now ( I don't remember the Wall Street Journal giving him any credit). Something like 45 million people in our country don't have health care (despite lots of spending). The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit is both complicated and massively expensive. The wealthy, pharmaceutical industry, and lobbyists are being taken care of by the Bush administration and Congress instead of those who are not so well-off.

Posted by: Jeremy | February 16, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm the guy who did the unsigned comment. Oops.

Why anyone from the Republican occupied South knows what a "librul" is. Its one of them weak-kneed, tax and spend, "Brokeback Mountain" watching, welfare-loving Democrats!

Oh, and not saying I'm a Wes Clark supporter. Just saying no one like a West Pointer to explain the military terms and historical allusions to the folks in the party who think "history" is the year old Newsweek in the doctor's office.

Posted by: Steve | February 16, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Here's a question: why is that journalists like Kathleen Parker get so worked about Al Gore giving a speech in Saudi Arabia while our president is photographed, literally, holding hands with a member of the Saudi Royal Family. Or why wasn't she upset with the Bushies allowing members of bin Laden's family to leave America without interrogation?

Posted by: Gore and Saudis | February 16, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

what's a librul?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2006 11:51 AM | Report abuse

This is something very arrogant about a journalist telling the Democratic Party's voters who they should or should not nominate. Here's a real suprise for you and the rest of the so called media "experts" and pundits: voters decide nominations, not journalists. Sometimes they make decisions we like and sometimes they don't, but they actually do control the process.

Posted by: mrgavel | February 16, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Bosnia. GEN Clark ordered the British 3-star in charge of the area to fire on the Russians because they took the airport in Sarajevo without orders. Luckily, the Brit refused the order. World War III could have started. No way I want that guy to ever be President.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2006 11:48 AM | Report abuse

The GOP will characterize and attack every Democrat. They were without mercy in the four campaigns they lost to FDR and the two against Bill Clinton and in 1948 against Harry Truman and in 1960 against JFK. There is not a candidate that won't be attacked so forget that reason.

Remember, the American people voted for Al Gore in 2000.

Posted by: Peter L. | February 16, 2006 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Oops, pushed "submit" too soon.

I guess my point is that Gore won't make that mistake. He'd have a shot against Brownback or Allen (and would probably be favored against the former), but probably not against McCain or Giuliani.

First commenter: is Snazzy Sue actually thinking about running?

Posted by: Jeff | February 16, 2006 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Liberalism is not a real liability, since the GOP will try to paint anyone to the left of their candidate as a liberal elitist or whatever (as opposed to a conservative elitist, I guess).

The flip-flop charge against Kerry wasn't the disease that took his candidacy down. It was a symptom of his failure to portray himself as a strong leader. Bush was effective in making Kerry look like someone who couldn't take a stand. Kerry didn't spend enough time in attack mode to counteract Bush's punches - an unforgivable offense for a challenger.

Posted by: Jeff | February 16, 2006 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"Democratic operatives" fearfulness that Gore, as opposed to anyone else in the Party, would be protrayed as a flip-flopper says a lot more about how utterly clueless the party's consultantocracy is than about Gore's intrinsic electability.

The Republicans have used the same game plan in every single presidential election since 1984! And yet, every single time they run the plays in this plan, the halfwits passing themselves off to the DNC as "political operatives" are taken completely by surprise and are left flatfooted and gibbering impotently about whose fault it is they were surprised. (Or if the candidate is really lucky and got the top-notch people, scrambling to improvise a response on the fly.)

The GOP game plan is simple. It has two stages. During the first two thirds of the campaign, the Republicans ridicule the Democratic candidate as a "flip-flopper." By staying relentlessly on message, they eventually get the meme so deeply embedded into the media that the late night comedians are regurgitating it nightly. At that point,the meme is self-sustaining and every speech the candidate gives will be scoured by the networks for an eight second soundbite that they can shoehorn in to the "he's a flipflopper" meme.

Once they've nurtured the "flipflopper" meme to this point, usually during their convention, they shift the message to "He's a Librul! Look out, the Evil Libruls are coming to raise your taxes and give the money to those shiftless welfare queens (*wink wink* you know who we're talking about), and destroy our armed forces and sell us out to the Russians/terrorists/Mexicans."

This is coming in 2008, no matter who the Democrats run. The search for a candidate who will be immune to it is futile. Anyone who has policy ideas too complex to state in one sentence can be portrayed as a flip-flopper. Anyone with a (D) after his or her name who ever voted against any bill or amendment that can be portrayed as a tax cut or a defense appropriation can be lynched for the sin of liberalism.

Way too many of the people with their hands on the levers of the Democratic Party's creaky machinery seem to think that if they can just find the "right" candidate, the Republicans won't be able to run this scam. (Indeed, that seems to be the sole operating principle of the DLC.)

Wake up and smell the latte people, there ain't no such person in the Party! At least no one who you would really want to be President.

Instead, here's a novel idea: rather than dithering around for a year, fruitlessly looking for a supercandidate with a magic cloak of invulnerabiity, how about putting a little effort into coming up with some plans for how to deal with what you should know is coming?

You've got the enemy's battle plan right there in your hot little collective hands. You are opposing a party billing itself "the party of ideas" that hasn't actually had an new policy or campaign idea of its own since 1980. You can act with 99% certainty they they won't come up with anything new for 2008. (Yes, they're that dumb. What does that make you for falling for it every time?) You can either use that to your advantage and come up with strategies to neutralize the coming attack and launch a counterattack--or heaven forbid, a spoiling attack--of your own, or you can dither away the advantage like McClellen before Antietam. (George B., not Scotty. Another Democratic presidential loser, come to think of it.)

P.S., if you don't understand all these nasty military terms and historical references, either get out of the business or ask Wes Clark what they mean.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2006 11:44 AM | Report abuse

hippie, what US embassy has been attacked while Bush was President? Still thinking? That's right: 0.

Yeah, and Gore still lost in 2000. I never bashed Clinton, except to say he has a complete lack of family values. But the country was in good shape back then.

Posted by: aj | February 16, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Phillip on this one. I don't think she will run. For a woman to be president they will have to be the BEST. Hillary just doesn't make the cut. I really think that you will see a major push for Wesley Clark from the Clinton circles. Then maybe HRC for VP, or possibly Gore (I mean he was a great VP).

Posted by: Andy R | February 16, 2006 11:42 AM | Report abuse

RC- How much have the Bushes and James Baker made off the Saudis? Why haven't you been asking?

Posted by: Evil | February 16, 2006 11:39 AM | Report abuse

aj, I could have made the exact same argument in 2000. In 2000, we hadn't had a terrorist attack on American soil in 5 years, an al Qaeda attack in 7. Would it have made you vote for Gore? No, Clinton bashers were talking about how bad things were going.

And if you count terrorist attacks on our troops and embassies overseas, Bush's record is abysmal.

Posted by: cynical ex-hippie | February 16, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Would you turn down $200,00 for a speech? Which is more advantageous for al Qaeda recruiting, telling Arabs we treated them bad (they already saw the pictures) or telling them we never tortured anyone?

And Bush kissed the Saudi King on the face for free.

As for Gore being a liberal, that is a liability. What is a liberal? I'm not sure. I think it's a code word for whatever the rednecks hate. The real liability for Gore is the prejudices of so-called middle America and the NASCAR crowd. They don't know what's going on in the mideast, they just know they don't like liberals.

Posted by: cynical ex-hippie | February 16, 2006 11:33 AM | Report abuse

FDB, yeah, our country is in complete disarrary. The dow's over 11,000. Jobless claims are the lowest in 6 years. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. What a mess. The only people that think the country is that bad off are Bush bashers like yourself.

Posted by: aj | February 16, 2006 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I am not sure whether she will or not.

Assuming you are right and she stays out, she will wait long enough to keep her financial patrons off the field long enough to keep Gore out of the pot.

However, if you have ready any of their biographies or were involved in the campaigns, the Clinton's believe in destiny, Hillary much more so than Bill.

She will be under tremendous pressure to run. What woman has ever lead any poll at any time for President of the United States?

She also has a tight-knit inner circle group of friends who will push the "destiny" angle with her.

I am not saying she can win a General election and I am not sure she even believes she can. But she cannot ignore the numbers at this point.

If she didn't run, I think it would eat away at her and she could not live with not knowing definitively whether she could have won or not.

Posted by: RMill | February 16, 2006 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Gore and Mark Warner are the two most viable candidates the Democrats can put forward. Gore has already won the presidency (which was wrested from him by the Supreme Court). Warner had an excellent record of leadership in a rather red state.

Perhaps a Gore-Warner ticket would be the perfect fix to get the nation back on track.

Posted by: FDB | February 16, 2006 11:26 AM | Report abuse

You're assuming that Hillary's going to run, but she isn't. There is sufficient power as the federal Senator from New York to satisfy her, but it is in her best interests to keep the Repubs guessing as long as possible. So -- no Hillary in 2008. I would be interested in how this affects your political calculus.

Posted by: Phillip A. Reed | February 16, 2006 11:21 AM | Report abuse

RC-Gore made $200,000 for that speech.

Posted by: aj | February 16, 2006 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Please stop beating me. I'm already dead.

Posted by: Dead Horse | February 16, 2006 11:12 AM | Report abuse


When do we start exploring the new talent like Bayh, Warner, Allen, Romney, etc.?

Posted by: And for something fresher... | February 16, 2006 11:12 AM | Report abuse


Is something missing?

>>Let's unpack the caricatures one by one.

First, that Gore is a liberal.

The other major caricature of Gore that has Democrats hesitant and fearful of a re-run national candidacy is his susceptability to the charge of flip-flopping.<<

I think the depth of the discussion earlier this week uncovered a host of issues that are not addressed here.

1. Loser label
2. No home state support (where is his base? DC?)
3. Fund raising (drawing from the same base as Hillary)

I think we beat this horse dead earlier in the week.

Posted by: RMill | February 16, 2006 11:09 AM | Report abuse

This is just more of the same about Gore. Before the RNC attacked Kerry for being a "flip-flopper" they were doing it to Gore. Flip-flopping is probably the biggest straw man in politics today. It isn't looking at the issues at hand and having a realistic debate. It's saying, oh you used to believe that and now you believe this. So what? Most politicians mature and change their opinions on certain matters. I for one think Gore is an excellent choice. He is more focused then people give him credit for and he has been extremely consistent on the issues. Gore isn't out of the mainstream, if anything his feelings are probably more in line with the average American then people want to admit.

Posted by: CMS | February 16, 2006 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Every politician with a sufficiently long career is a flip-flopper; ideas change with time. But that's not the point when it comes to an election. Gore *looks* like a flip-flopper to the public, so all we have to do is add to what the public already thinks beneath the surface. He also speaks with a "hectoring monotone" and sounds like a professor.

It was even worse with Kerry. Forget the $87 bn remark. You can't "report" for duty as Highly Decorated Naval Officer to a box containing Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore and expect people who are not Democrats to take you seriously. You also can't say "we're in the worng war at the wrong place at the wrong time" but, knowing everything you know now, you'd have still voted to authorize it ....

Actually, I don't think there is any point in blaming these two candidates either. They accurately reflect the Democrats' own internal divisions: if the party itself thinks several different, contradictory things about a given issue, the party's candidates will "flip-flop" on that issue because it's politically impossible to do otherwise.

Posted by: mewsifer | February 16, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

fox polls are fixed, and o'reilly's attacke only help fire up Gore's liberal base.

Get ready 2008 because here comes GORE!

Posted by: gorealltheway | February 16, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Since ascending to power in 2000, the republicans failed to prevent the largest terrorist attack ever on American soil, have failed to capture the leader of the terrorist attackers, have deliberately mislead the country to justify a war in Iraq, tarnished America's international reputation by essentially sanctioning torture and ignoring the Geneva Conventions, have executed the war in Iraq incompetently, have been caught multiple times using government funds to produce propaganda targeted to the American public, compromised national security by outing a CIA agent for political purposes, botched the emergency response to Katrina, have continually ignored scientists and intellegence officials in order to fit the "facts" to their political agenda, have had the "K-street project" exposed for the corrupt, "auctioning of Congress to the highest bidder" scam that it is, have led the country from a historic budget surplus to a historic budget deficit and have continually forstalled any meaningful investigation into any of the above.

But Al Gore is a "flip-flopper?" Call "Faux News," we have a problem.

Posted by: Jerry | February 16, 2006 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you cite Gore's accusation of Bush for "breaking the law" as one of the reasons he isn't electable. Isn't it a sad day when somone isn't electable for telling the truth? Howard Dean told the truth and that made him "crazy." What's crazy is how the "reality based community" is considered outside the American mainstream while delusional Republicans prevail and Democrats are compelled to be mealy mouthed to have any viability. What does that say about us? When people exorted Truman to "give him hell Harry" he responded. "I'm not giving them hell. I'm just giving them the truth."

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal | February 16, 2006 10:56 AM | Report abuse

I don't neccesarily think that Gore is the only person who can beat Hillary. My thoughts are that Edwards, Warner, and Clark could all raise enough money to compete with her.
Clark and Edwards are both intelligent and good public speakers. (I have never seen Warner speak so I can't judge on that). Also all three are "electable" which will be a big issue when you talk about Hillary running. The more and more I think about it the more and more I like the Idea of Clark at the head of the ticket with a Bayh or even HRC as the VP.

Posted by: Andy R | February 16, 2006 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The MLK speech was hardly out of the mainstream. The Saudi speech may have been a tactical mistake (if he is running), but what he said was also mainstream. I think its fine that he gets passionate, but sometimes he slips into hyperbole. There are too many politicians that play it too cautious, however, I think that a step towards Barack Obama's style (a possible running mate), would help significantly.

As for flip-flopping, I think that Gore has evolved since 2000 and is running as a progressive populist, hardly flip-flopping. But, as I said before a cooler style is not incompatible with progressive populism. I thought, once again, he was perfect in the MLK speech at the end, but came across a bit harsh rhetorically in Saudi Arabia (also, I think it was not a helpful venue, but the O'Reilly controversy and the Orlando Sentinel's columnist is full of beans).

I read somewhere else that only 16% of folks wanted Hillary to run in a recent poll, so I don't take this Fox survey seriously at least not at this stage of the contest.

Obviously Gore has the ability and knowledge of government, to be at a minimum a good president and potentially a great president. Certainly, the media has not been playing fairly on the anger issue, witness their treatment of McCain vs. Gore.

Life is not fair, however, and Gore who has the best ideas, is a decent and smart guy, needs to take moderate readings, like a geiger counter from time to time, to tone down his rhetoric and think how the two-thirds of the country who potentially might support his candidacy feel about what (and how)he comes across.

The ability to effectively communicate is a substantial part of the presidency. Gore has the substance, now he needs to work more on the style. No sense over-correcting for 2000.

Posted by: Jeff | February 16, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I'm smarter that this dolt. For pete's sake, why did I have to grow on the face of such an idiot.

Posted by: Al Gore's Beard | February 16, 2006 10:48 AM | Report abuse

The biggest problem is not with the candidates in the last two elections, it's the advisors. Any time you win the "Shrum lottery" you've guaranteed a loss.

Flip-flopping and the Swift Boat issues should have been taken on directly. Anyone who really cared about the candidate and the campaign would have heard that, instead we got a guy who was too busy watching his account grow with media buys. The Democratic party should reform itself and get rid of the consultants with obvious conflicts of interest (at least on a Presidential level).

Posted by: jacketpotato | February 16, 2006 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Gore is the best choice the Democrats have. He is the only one who can beat Hillary in an Primary.

Gore can not be painted into a flip-flopper like Kerry. Gore has stood firm on important issues like global warming and against the war in Iraq.

He is a great speaker, and seems to be getting better as the years go by. In 2000 Gore's consultants were the ones who killed his chances of winning by forcing him to do stupid things like wearing earth tones.

I truly hope Gore decides to run for President in 2008. He is the best choice and would make the best President.

Posted by: itstime | February 16, 2006 10:37 AM | Report abuse

A caricature of Gore? Please. How does one caricature a caricature? I'd like to know how much the Saudis paid Gore to tell radical Islamists exactly what they want to hear.

Posted by: RC | February 16, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

The next time I want to decide who would be a good Democratic candidate for the Presidency I'll make sure I look to a Fox News poll.

Wasn't it George Bush who said that he was a uniter not a divider. Arguably the most divisive President the United States has ever had flip flopping is not something that the republicans should bring back up if they don't want to have their #1 fundraiser be radioactive to their 08 candidate. At least Kerry admitted to doing something wrong and then had his name dragged through the mud for it.

Gore would be a good President. Just like this one, I feel that he does and would stay on message and be able to energize the base as well as pick up almost all the independent votes who were conned into voting for w and don't want to make the same mistake twice.

One other thing, if you look to an article by Madeline Albright in Foreign Affairs stating that if Gore would have won the Presidency (which he arguably did) his administration would have had the right policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are in turmoil today. Just because he lost the presidency does not mean he has to give up on getting America back on track. It's been six years and the republican strategy is still the same, call him a sore loser so he'll quit. Well, anyone in my book who is willing to stand up and let America know that what is going on here is wrong is a winner in my book.

Posted by: BigB | February 16, 2006 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Chris, in your case against Al you quote a Fox News survey and the RNC. What did you think they might say in relation to Al Gore? You quote Kathleen Parker, what party do you think she ALWAYS criticizes. Come on, you can do better than that. I bet there are a number of Dems who are not in favor of Gore--why not make the case against from THEIR point of view?

As for the flip-flopping, guess what, don't we all change our opinions over time. I am 43--I do not have the same views on some issues as I had 20 years ago. I bet many people don't. I will guarantee that 20 years from now I will change my opinion on a number of occasions. Nothing wrong with that--unless of course I run for office.

Posted by: jenniferm | February 16, 2006 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Glenn. Does any person not flip flop? It's called changing your mind. I would prefer to have a politician in office who is willing to alter their positions in response to new and better information, or a nuanced understanding of the issues, than one that sticks dogmatically to an ideal in the face over overwhelming evidence that their positions are no longer in the best interests of the country.

Moreover, for a representative to change their vote on some issue over the course of time can also represent a change in the beliefs of the constituents that he/she represents.

Any politician that refuses to alter their positions has no business being in office.

Posted by: Carl | February 16, 2006 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Does any politician not flip flop?

George Allen should get nailed for it, judging from your post a while back, about his move to the right on social issues.

Why does an evolution of one's ideas have to be considered flip flopping?

Posted by: Glenn Gervasio | February 16, 2006 9:55 AM | Report abuse

First, every politician with more than two years in office is going to open to claims of "flip-flopping." It's non-sense, and it ties in with the junk written above that. So Gore said that we should and will do everything to stop terrorists. Um, I don't see exactly how that is inconsistent with his views that the President has broken the law. Gore didn't say "We'll do everything we can including ignoring established law to stop terrorists."

Frankly, if this is all you've got (and a Fox poll, wow, no surprises there) against a Gore 2008 run, I'm feeling pretty good about backing him if he does.

Posted by: corbett | February 16, 2006 9:50 AM | Report abuse


Electability - yes that is the word the press used to dupe Democrats into voting for Kerry who we now know was not electable -

If I were the Democrats I would be more worried about Senator Susan Collins running for the White House - Senate hearings bore me because they are normally party driven to the point of being a waste of taxpayers dollars

Senator Collins proved in the FEMA hearings that hearings can actually have purpose -

I never thought I would say this but - as a Democrat given a choice between Gore, Biden, Kerry, or Clinton and Susan Collins I would vote for Susan Collins

At least she stands for getting to the truth.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | February 16, 2006 9:39 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company