Democrats Hating Democrats: How Al Gore Was Reviled Before He Was Beatified

Monday's awkward, silent photo session of Al Gore and George W. Bush on the occasion of the presidential reception for American Nobel Prize winners is a testament to the ironic reversals of history. Gore is admired throughout the world. Only a third of Americans approve of Bush. With the presidential campaign in full swing, and one candidate curiously reviled by certain segments of the left and right alike, it is instructive to remember that Al Gore was once hated by certain segments of the left and right alike. His rehabilitation should serve as an object lesson to Democrats.

The Right likes to dismiss Gore as just the latest liberal media darling. But in the 2000 campaign, Gore-bashing was the liberal media's, and just about everyone else's, favored mode. Most damningly, Gore was reported to be a waffler and a dissembler, if not a liar. Following Texas Republican Dick Armey's lead, USA Today claimed Gore boasted he "invented" the Internet. The New York Times reported Gore asserting that he and his wife Tipper were the inspiration for the bestseller and movie Love Story. The Washington Post misquoted Gore and made him appear to be claiming credit for discovering Love Canal. The hitch was that Gore didn't lie. Like a perverse game of telephone, the truth, casually remarked on by Gore, was relayed, distorted, and then deployed as gotcha character attacks. (For the sordid and illuminating details, see Evgenia Peretz's excellent recent Vanity Fair article, "Going After Gore".) Gore did in fact sponsor the legislation that opened the Internet to commercial use. Erich Segal, the author of Love Story, confirmed that Gore was the model for the main character. And the refutations go on.

The most damning indictment of Gore was that he was smug and a boring wonk. He did not know how to dress. He was cold and unapproachable. He was said to have rolled his eyes during the first debate. Gore was not a guy you'd want to have a beer with. Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times claimed Gore rendered audiences comatose. David Broder of the Washington Post complained Gore talked about the issues too much. Maureen Dowd called Gore "a pious smarty-pants." She wrote, "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating." Bush on the other hand was a fellow you could have a beer with.

Some Democrats were complicit in comparing candidates on their "likeability," not on the issues or their capacity for leadership. There was little to distinguish Gore from Bush, others claimed. Most of them voted, reluctantly, for Gore anyway. A few million, though, cast protest votes for Ralph Nader.

Gore today is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, beloved of most progressives, most everywhere. The question is, did Gore change, or did we? Was the portrait of Gore-the-Bore true at the time?

Yes, Gore changed a little. But Americans changed more. We learned that there was a difference between Bush and Gore. And no, the portrait was false, its particulars fabricated. This is the object lesson for today, and the reason this subject bears repeating.

Gore was mocked into a dead-heat, John Kerry swift-boated to defeat. America has now gone through two extremely close presidential elections in which character assassination has played a critical role in the outcome.

The fate of Gore should serve as a cautionary tale to Democrats and the Democratic candidates. Will some Democrats again unconsciously give aid and comfort to their Republican opponents, by echoing the ad hominem attacks that frequently originate in the right-wing noise machine? The last two presidential elections suggest that route leads to defeat.

Comments

[sailhardy]

Yes, Big Al is a poster boy for fund raising excess, along with Bill Clinton. The excesses of the Nixon era, once regarded as an outrage, became the norm under those boys.

And Al, you know, has run for the presidency or on a national ticket four times. There's no excuse for the miscues during his 2000 campaign.

People voted for Nader because they were disgusted with the Democratic Party or Al Gore, or both.

And while Big Al may or may not have said he invented the Internet, or that he and Tipper were the original couple for Love Story, it is indisputable that he was the one who slung Willy Horton around Mike Dukakis' neck, which eventually throttled that campaign.

It is problematic who really won Florida. I agree. It is not problematic that Gore lost his home state, Tennessee. I do not know how many successful campaigns made it to the White House in spite of losing the successful candidate's home state, but it can't be very many.

[castlerider]

Thanks for a great post.
This truly was, actually, is, a great lesson not just for Dems but for all Americans. Elected leadership should be held to a standard of a basic honesty where when someone twists the truth they should be held accountable; if it is an honest mistake it should still be acknowledged, apologized for and justly face a reputable stain on their credibility.

I agree with Tellmethetruth's statement that Dems should simply consentrate on getting out the vote, but also keep the fighting spirit to make things right; Like this idiot Rove's latest attempt to rewrite history, trying to say it was Congress' fault it was done in such a hurry, not Bush's...
What a crock! We were all alive then, we know what happened. We weren't asleep or braindead. I remember Robert Byrd talking to an empty chamber, asking for more resolute and determined cautious thinking while Bush Amassed his Army at the border of Kuwait, and waited for weeks.
What a bold faced, arrogant liar this sorry excuse of a man is...
He should be held in contempt by all this nation at a minimum the same way Armey ridiculed Gore for the internet thing, which was completely dishonest on Armey's part. These are facts right in our faces- being twisted by this sorry little twerp with an obvious hidden agenda that he is probably working in the background, not to mention what he's trying to cram down people's throats and minds.

It won't work, Rove. We know you're a criminal, liar, and a thief; not just a fat faced smug squirrel.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Even when this should be a slam dunk...you are so right in your observation!

[freespeach]

Any discussion of Democrats hating Democrats has to look at why this is happening.

By and large progressives are disappointed with the lack of any serious effort to end the immoral Iraq occupation.

Disappointed with the confirmation of torture advocate Mukasey without a fight by Democrats.

Disappointed with the FISA bill sellout that gives Bush the right to spy on Americans.....outraged might be a better word.

Disappointed in the steadfast refusal to impeach our dirty war criminals.....ignoring the will of their base, protecting Bush from the rule of law. Very disappointed!

Things are much worse now than in 2000.

Nader talked about health care, workers rights, jobs, free trade etc.
Bill Clinton did a pretty good job overall.
So there was no real urgency or obvious reason to go with Nader.

Now it is about WAR, SPYING ON AMERICANS, and TORTURE.
Democrats are now on the wrong side of all these three issues which did not exist in 2000.
In addition, they bend over backwards to avoid impeaching the criminal who leads us down a very dark road.

I never once considered voting for Nader in 2000.
Baring a Kucinich miracle I'll be voting Green in 08.
With a lot more sadness than hatred.

[krissymax]

Your Post is right on the mark. The Democrats always destroy their own in the primary. We have many great candidates that deserve support and respect.

[True]

It is really easy to point at the wonderfully intelligent, charismatic, innovative, and passionate man that Al Gore is today and blame 2000 on Nader. But the fact is, Democratic hacks mishandled and watered-down Gore into losing 2000, Kerry in 2004, and are apparently trying their darnedest to lose in '08. They've even had two elections stolen from them and conceded with a whimper. "Oh, so sorry big boy Republicans, you can have the white house again..." I truly believe that the Democratic party is run by Republican secret agents, or something like that. History will regard this Democratic Party with as much disdain as the European leaders who stood by wringing their hands as Germany began their conquests in the 1930s.
There are many wonderful people, and leaders, within the Democratic Party, who i deeply respect. Unfortunately the best of them (Kucinich for example, and Al Gore) seem to not have much of a voice even within their own party.

[MaxGowan]

In the 200 Election exit polls, forty-two percent (42%) of Nader voters stated they would have voted for Gore had Nader not been on the ballot. That's Florida without a recount, New Hampshire, West Virginia, etc., an Electoral landslide. So let us divest ourselves of the notion there are no sheep on the left. Nader backed Bush on the Florida recount. What a classy move. "Nader is the white luxury vote." - Jesse Jackson, Jr. It's not Democrratic hacks who know this - hell, it's Republicans.

[research]

What Liberal Media? The Post?! The NY Times?

[Dantheman99]

Al Gore won that election, but didn't fight for his victory. And when it was stolen from him, he didn't led any mass protests that could have destroyed Bush's political capitol before he even took office or call for abolition of the immoral Electoral College, because he wanted Americans to "have faith in their system". Have faith in their corporate bought and financed, corrupt and undemocratic system. No thanks. His final decision was yet another wrong DLC choice.

Democratic Party hacks and apologists who still blame Ralph Nader and the Greens for Al Gore's defeat really need to remove the log from their own eyes before they try to remove the speck out of mine.

[Dantheman99]

It's a very myopic view of the 2000 election.

The Gore of 2000 was NOT the Gore of The Inconvenient Truth. In 2000, I watched him make a campaign speech and he said boldly, "We're going to reform health care incrementally!" And, the was proud of the world "incremental".

I voted Green Party, not because I am a Naderite, but because the DLC-controlled Democratic Party was and still for the most part is in hock to corporate campaign contributions and isn't a genuine progressive force in America. I voted Green Party in part hoping they'd reach 5% of the vote and qualify for Federal funding and try to break the obscene strangehold on American politics by two-corporate parties.

Was Al Gore and George W. Bush the same? Of course, there were difference. But not enough. I made a choice to try and build something different. I am proud of my 2000 vote and stand behind it. I would do it again. I will never apologize for voting my conscience and not holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.

If Al Gore had been the 2008 Al Gore back then, I may indeed have voted for him.

While the Greens are still a minor party in America, the 2000 campaign helped Greens achieve greater organization and more ballot access. There are now over 200 elected Greens nationwide and the feckless and cowardly performance of this current Democratic Congress has been a recruiting bonanza for us.

If the Democrats are worried about Green votes costing the elections, then may I recommend they join the movement towards adopting "Instant-Runoff Voting" a.k.a. "Ranked-Choice Voting" that is now beginning to be adopted by more localities, or some other form of runoff election. Al Gore was NOT entitled to my vote. I did not vote a protest "against" something. I vote "for" something better.

[OttoMann]

Q: "Was the portrait of Gore-the-Bore true at the time?"

A: Yes! Watch the tapes, if you can bear. He would be just as boring and uninspiring in today's world as he was then. He may have his head and heart in the right place -- and he may be fighting the right fight -- but he still has about as much charisma and pizzazz as, say, John Kerry.

Al Gore is capable of preaching to the converted, but he can't bring anyone new into the congregation, for that would require public speaking skills he simply doesn't have in him. Democrats need to get a grip when it comes to national/Presidential campaigns: you can't just pick someone YOU like -- you have to nominate someone that can bring in NEW converts to the big tent.

The ad hominem attacks are inevitable, once your party has picked another dud. Think about it; remove the flukey Clinton from the list, and the last four Democratic nominees have been: Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry. And in each case, at the time, the Dems actually thought these were good choices! I'd be truly hard pressed to think of four people more boring, uninspiring, and off-putting as that foursome....

[iluvsam]

"Will some Democrats again unconsciously give aid and comfort to their Republican opponents, by echoing the ad hominem attacks that frequently originate in the right-wing noise machine?"


Of course they will, however it will not be "unconsciously" done--it will be "consciously" done. The Dems do it EVERYDAY hundreds of times over on this site alone. It's pathetic and stupid. A perfect example is what Obama and Edwards continually say about Sen. Clinton. It makes me sick. If I hear how "polarizing" Sen. Clinton is, or how she "can't win the general election" one more time, I'm going to throw up. Isn't it up to us to ensure that she (or whoever the nominee is) DOES win? Repeating Republican talking points doesn't help to ensure a victory. Instead of defining our own candidates, we allow the Repubs to do it for us. We are like the smart kid on the playgorund who gets picked on or called "geek" by the kids who are more street smart. The smart kid curls up with his book, believes the bully is right that he IS a geek, and then cries because he thinks noone understands him. That is why we are two time losers this century. Because we have no balls to call the bullies what they are and to call them out on the character assinations. No matter who the nominee is, we have to support them to the fullest extent, because we CANNOT have another 4 years of Repub hell. Anytime I hear anyone say anything negative about ANY of our candidates (whether or not it is the one I'm voting for in the primary), they get a nice lecture from me. All of us should be doing the same, not playing into the hands of the bullies.

[oogabooga]

The Dems lack savvy PR people who can disect these bromides that the neocons throw out there to demonize a Dem candidate. I was amazed how Gore and Kerry just rolled over when bombarded with garbage from the neocons. No return fire, just roll over and surrender. Unbelievable. Will the Dems do the same this time? Will they learn? Hire some smart PR people who can cut through the neocons' BS? I think one of Gore's biggest mistakes besides lack of forceful communication was picking Lieberman, who turns many a stomach out here in the hinterlands.

[beamish]

This type of reminder is necessary, needs to be repeated every month during the election cycle.
Certain "blue dog democrats" and those democrats that think their point or view is more important then winning the election, need constant reminding that losing is not acceptable.
The other side seems to have little difficulty in this area, as seeing how certain elements of the "religious right" are embracing Giuliani.
They understand losing is not an acceptable option.

[leftcoastindy]

Character assasination and ignorance of the voters (Saddam was the most evil person who ever lived). Works every time.