Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When will Al Gore step up and throw Lieberman under the bus?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
T Roosevelt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:20 PM
Original message
When will Al Gore step up and throw Lieberman under the bus?
I think Al could eliminate Lieberman from any future in politics if he showed up at a Lamont fundraiser and said "I don't know what happened to Joe Leiberman, but this is not the same man that I selected as my running mate six years ago. That man would have accepted the will of the voters and happily endorsed the winner of Connecticut's primary, Ned Lamont."

Where's Al?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
UnityDem Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. Doubt that will happen. However,
if Gore were directly asked who he supports in the Conn. Senate Race, I'd bet you'd like his answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoilinfor2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good question.
But politicians always try to see all the angles, making certain nothing they say or do can hurt their future political moves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Not that Gore calculated much over the last 4 years.
He doesn't seem to care anymore what the plebs think about him.
If he ever really cared about that at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoilinfor2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
24. Don't bet your top hat on that one. Once a politician...
Having said that, Gore IS my #1 choice in 2008. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
30. And ironically, it seems to have made people like him more. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. SOMEBODY better do it - it's for sure Clinton and Hillary won't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Not true.
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 07:32 PM by AtomicKitten
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. What would be the benefit for Al in doing so?
I could see him at a Lamont fundraiser or making a statement of support for the democratic candidate, but it is possible that there may need to work with Lieberman in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. Al has pretty much done that by not campaigning for him
He chose him in 2000. Perhaps he could tell us why the fuck he did that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Because Clinton got a blow job and lied about it and
the entire damn South was obsessed with that -- much like they are now with this whole Foley stuff.
If Reps lose big in November Foley will have more role in that than any other factor, even Iraq.

If Gore wanted any chance to win a single state in the South he had to show those stupid "moral voters" that he was not like Clinton, that he did not approve that kind of behavior and his administration would not be a sequel of the Clinton soup opera. Picking Lieberman helped in Florida but Florida didn't know how to conduct democratic elections so we know what happened.

Stupid people have a tendency to blame politicians for things that other politicians did. Good ol' guilt by association.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. That may all be true, but I never want Lieberman one heartbeat away
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 07:43 PM by Tom Rinaldo
from becoming President. And if you believe that Joe Lieberman was the only potential VP candidate who could project moral character for the Democratic Party, than you have a worse view of Democrats than the average Republican. Look, I have already forgiven Al Gore for making that mistake, he is a better man today than he was back then and Gore was a good man then also. But I don't appreciate a meme that calls those who think Gore was mistaken to attempt to elevate Joe Lieberman to the Vice Presidency stupid. Had Gore not been cheated out of that election, Joe Lieberman would be the overwhelming favorite to step into the Presidency in 2008. Think about that for awhile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Well, Gore would have called the shots not Joementum
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 08:12 PM by silko
And Lieberman wouldn't have become a Bush kisser as Gore's vice president, obviously.
Most of the things which make Joe look so horrible nowadays happened in the last 4 years.
In 2000 he was viewed as a mainstream Democrat and Gore's choice was viewed as bold simply because Joementum is an orthodox Jew. (You can be sure that energized Arab and Muslim voters, without whom Bush couldn't have become pResident. An often overlooked factoid.)

He really started to change when Bush came up with this let's invade Iraq madness. But I don't remember
Lieberman proposing the invasion of Iraq in 2000. It would be interesting to hear why he didn't want that back then if he thought Saddam was such a big threat.


"And if you believe that Joe Lieberman was the only potential VP candidate who could project moral character for the Democratic Party, than you have a worse view of Democrats than the average Republican."

I really didn't care about Lieberman's moral character, I believed Gore himself was moral enough, so the choice was redundant -- at least it would have been in a rational world.
But I cannot think of any other Democrat who would have been better for Gore both politically during the campaign and in policy making in the White House. There was really no good choice for him.
Kerry was to liberal, Edwards was too green. Picking Bob Graham would have been seen as the mother of all opportunism Gore would have been trashed for it by the oh-so-liberal media. We know how they treated Gore and still do.

And it made the situation even more difficult that Gore really never made friends in the political circles despite being there for 24 years. He had a handful of people he really trusted, none of them politicians but technocrats like Leon Fuerth, who is otherwise a great guy but would have become Gore's national security advisor not veep. Otherwise who did he trust? Who could he have worked with?
I can't think of anyone. Gore was not particularly close to Lieberman, either.

"I have already forgiven Al Gore for making that mistake,"

He doesn't think it was a mistake. Nor do I.

"he is a better man today than he was back then and Gore was a good man then also. "

Well he would certainly reject that. Gore has not changed since 2000. Lieberman has.


"But I don't appreciate a meme that calls those who think Gore was mistaken to attempt to elevate Joe Lieberman to the Vice Presidency as being stupid."

Actually I called those stupid who couldn't get over the blow job. The so called moral values voters.
There were plenty of them out there in 2000. Actually more than in 2004, according to the exist polls, even while after 2004 the media talked a lot about then while after 2000 they didn't.

"Had Gore not been cheated out of that election, Joe Lieberman would be the overwhelming favorite to step into the Presidency in 2008."

That's not sure at all. A lot could have happened under a Gore administration which wouldn't have made Lieberman an overwhelming favorite for the nomination. But even if he had been he wouldn't have had much chance to get elected. After 16 years of Dem presidents I bet a Republican would have been elected.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Of course we will never know
But if history is any indicater, 8 year sitting VP's are given a shot to run for President by their Party if they want it. And if we are not restricting the list to people that Gore knew well and was comfortable with (since you say Lieberman doesn't fit that criteria) then there were a host of Senators and Governors, and possilby others, who Gore could have drafted to run with him in 2000, and to be honest, coming out of 8 years of relative Peace and Prospertiy I don't think Gore would have needed to nail down a single state with his pick had his campaign been run better.

But I seem to have misunderstood your original post about who you were calling stupid, lol. I still disagree with you, but you present a solid case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Why should anyone vote for Gore just because
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 09:23 PM by silko
there was 8 years of prosperity?

Peace is not a political asset in the US. War is an asset. If Clinton had invaded Afghanistan after the Cole Gore would have become president easily as voter wouldn't have left an ungoing conflict to a newbie like Bush.

That Gore ran a bad campaign is a myth. You cannot come up 15 point in the polls and win the most votes at the end with a bad campaign.
Gore had to fight an uphill battle because he started the campaign by 15 points behind Bush thanks to 8 years of scandals, real or imagined. He was the underdog from the beginning. Prosperity didn't help Gore , he was just vice president and veeps never get the credit for the good things while they get the blame for the bad things. Most of the credit went to the private sector and Alan Greenspan anyway. Even Clinton himself said in California at the end of the campaign that the race was close because the boom lasted for such a long time people started to take it for granted and not link it with whoever is in the Oval Office. To some extent they were right the new economy indeed lives its own life and presidents have little influence over it.
Whenever Gore tried to take credit for the economy voters thought he was taking credit for something he didn't even do.

But which red state you think Gore should have won and why?

"then there were a host of Senators and Governors, and possilby others, who Gore could have drafted to run with him in 2000,"

Such as who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. You care more about discussing this now than I do
I am actually popping onto DU on and off as a break from working on a major project on a deadline. At another time I might engage you more, it is a good potential discussion, but not now. I don't have time to research which Democrats held which offices then and what their public approval ratings were at the time, but there are always numerous potential roads not taken when it comes to a vice Presidential choice. Clintons approval ratings were NOT low during the 2000 Presidential Election. Republicans lost seats in the 1998 elections.

But I'm not even sure I would want to continue this discussion now even if I did have the time for it. It is a distraction before the mid term elections, plus I have a lot of respect for Al Gore who is one of three Democrats right now who I could enthusiastically support for President in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Clinton's personal approval rating was low in 2000
Not his job approval. Well, actually his job approval was not that high in red states, either. Around 50% according to the exit polls. His personal ratings however were very low around 35%.

Actually when Gore was behind Bush in 1999 his own job approval was high, 60%.
Which proves that high job approval does not automatically translate into votes.

"Republicans lost seats in the 1998 elections."

Yes they lost because they pushed the impeachment which most people didn't want. But that doesn't mean they approved Clinton's conduct. One doesn't follow from the other. They disapproved both the impeachment and Clinton's BJ and lies. The Reps paid a price for the former in 1998 and Gore paid a price for the later in 2000.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
35. My two cents: every candidate should be expected to win his own state.
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 10:00 PM by NCarolinawoman
As I understand it, then Florida wouldn't have even mattered.

Having said that, I believe Al Gore would have been one of our very best Presidents EVER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Roosevelt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
34. Choosing Graham would not have been opportunistic
Florida wasn't a problem before the election, and Graham would have been THE choice from the South (and from anywhere else IMHO). He was this state's best governor, and well respected at all levels. With Graham, Gore would have carried Florida easily (despite Harris's shenanigans).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. Um... not everyone in the South is a "morals voter" or stupid.
Get over your big, bad self.

Tennessee is just about to elect a BLACK man to Senate. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Who said everyone?
I talked about those who were those stupid moral value voters. And most of them were in the South.
Don't believe? Look at the 2000 and the 2004 election map.

I don't know whether Ford will win or not but as far as I know Ford was not involved in some sex scandal. Clinton was. And Gore had the misfortune to be a vice president the Clinton administration. You don't think it had any effect on the 2000 race, do you? Well, it had. Ford doesn't have a problem anything like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'd love to see Big Dog, Al Gore & John Kerry on the same
stage, fundraising for Lamont and making it clear that they support Ned over Lieberman. I think the MSM would cover an event like that, and it would send a strong clear message to Dems of CT. IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Offtopic: can anyone tell me why Clinton is called the Big Dog?
Where does this come from?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Good question......
I picked it up here. Would love the know the origins myself. Welcome to DU silko.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. I believe it was a secret service nick name for Bill....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. It would make a huge impression
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 08:26 PM by karynnj
but very hard to co-ordinate and maybe a waste of scarce Democratic power to use all 3 together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. Gore said he stays out of the Conn. race.
But you can be sure he is not a big fan of Joe nowadays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
26. I Just Checked An Al Gore Web Site.... But It Didn't Give Any Way
to contact him. I wonder if we FLOODED him with requests if he would be willing to be a REAL DEMOCRAT and help us, HELP LAMONT???

It's worth a try if we can write him, all he can do is ignore us or say no. This would define him even more in my estimation. If we here are considering him as a 2008 candidate I think it would be BENEFICIAL to him to help our HIS BASE! Not Mr. Lie's!!!

Anyone know how to contact him, and does anyone think this is a good idea????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Personally, I think it would be great if
Al did decide to campaign for Lamont, however in my book, Al Gore of all the people on the planet is the last one that has to prove him self/her self to me, to be considered a REAL DEMOCRAT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Sorry If I Gave The Impression That I Felt He Needed To Prove Anything
to me. I was "generalizing" to some extent, but do feel this would be a PERFECT move to further bolster support from many here at DU.

I've ALWAYS been with Gore, even way back when. I think what happened in 2000 was almost inconceivable at the time and have long since decided that even those of us who live here in Florida were shocked by what happened. It was much harder to make the argument that the election was "in reality" stolen!

What better way to upset The Idiot's Apple cart than to stick it to him by lending some heavy handed support to Lamont. It would be the LAST thing The Idiot would want!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
21. I would be thrilled if he stumped for Lamont.
that would be awesome
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. Most of our leading 2008 contenders other than Warner have helped already
There is still time to win this election for Lamont. Joe Lieberman has been on the wrong side of the National Security debate. What's happening in North Korea now may help Lamont, because Lieberman too closely tied his wagon to Bush on National Security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RFKHumphreyObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
22. But remember what happened when Gore endorsed Dean?
Lieberman portrayed himself as a wounded martyr who had stayed out of the presidential race until Gore had made his intentions known and made a big hue and cry about how he had been so loyal to Gore and now Gore had stabbed him in the back and had acted like an ungrateful and mean and spiteful person. Lieberman quite convincingly played the role of a friend betrayed and did his best to cast Gore in a negative light and all indications are that it was quite successful in terms of short term impact -if I remember accurately there was an increase in donations to Lieberman's campaign.

Of course Lieberman didn't mention how he effectively abandoned Gore during the recount and so on but that's another story

I think Gore may be concerned that, if he comes and campaigns for Lamont, Lieberman will start acting like a spoilt and petulant child again (goodness knows he's done enough of that already this year) and this will both cast Gore in an unfavorable light and boost Lieberman's prospects of being re-elected. He's using silence, which perhaps is the deadliest weapon of all against a man whom was his running mate in 2000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silko Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Yes Dean poll numbers went up. Then they went
down but Gore had nothing to do with that.
The capture of Saddam, the stupidity of the Iowa voters who believed Kerry's Vietnam record will be a plus in the general election, the tape which showed Dean disssing the Iowa caucus and a concerted attack against him both by his rivals and the media were the reasons why Dean lost in Iowa. Then came the scream and that was the last nail in his coffin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. Well, Obviously I Disagree... Repukes Don't Stand Down When It
comes to these types of issues!! What about Lincoln Chaffey? Sure, they still want him, but they don't REALLY want him. Besides, I understand he's behind in the polls right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
29. I think Gore should endorse Lamont, but it won't change the outcome
I think Gore should endorse the Democratic Party candidate. But don't be fooled into thinking a Gore endorsement would impact the outcome. If Lieberman wins (and I hope he doesn't) its going to be because of support from republicans and independents. Democrats make up less than 40 percent of the electorate in Connecticut, and I don't see an endorsement from Gore being all that persuasive with indies who are leaning Lieberman's way.

Keep in mind the following: in 2000, Connecticut voters got to vote both for Gore/Lieberman" for president and Lieberman for Senate -- Lieberman for Senate got more votes than Gore/Lieberman for president.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC