Reply #33: On being honest and objective

[HamdenRice]

We each have our favorite Democratic leaders as this point, and I won't try to pretend that I prefer John Kerry over Al Gore.

But I think objectively, their reactions to their respective stolen elections, what they have done in the interim and what their positions are now, are quite different.

First, Gore fought for his rightful election for much longer than Kerry. The 2000 election "crisis" lasted several weeks, while Kerry conceded the day after the election. This was so, even though in many ways, the Republican violation of law was far more blatant in 2004 than in 2000. In 2004, TV images showed Ohio voters waiting on line for hours, being denied the right to vote. In 2000, the battle was about a recount. In other words, in 2004, even if Kerry wasn't sure the election had been stolen, it was obvious even before election day that the Voting Rights Act had been violated because African American voting districts had been systematically denied voting machines and had voters in those areas had been harassed and intimidated.

Now, Kerry is making cautious statements about election reform, but has publicly rebuked Mark Crispin Miller about Miller's contention that Kerry knew the election was stolen. Gore is basically saying that the election may have been stolen but for national security reasons, he has to craft a careful statement about it. And in the politics of leaks and spokespersons, Gore has freed his attorney to say, yes the election was stolen while even through his spokesmen, Kerry's message is basically, we can't know what the outcome would have been.

Your cross post also contains assertions that have little to do with the OP's topic, but have to do with the war. Since you raised it, let's address it. Gore is the only major Democratic leader other than Dean who from the beginning said the war was wrong. That's why Gore endorsed Dean at great risk to his own reputation. Kerry according to your own cross post is still talking about getting the mission right. That plays into the idea that there is some shred of a reason for the invasion of Iraq other the pure lies and the desire to create an oil empire.

But you have to look at this comparison in context. Gore has been out of office for six years. He has no standing within the party or the government to work on election reform. He has basically the bully pulpit, and from that pulpit, he is speaking truth to power. Kerry is still speaking Senate-speak -- the carefully crafted and poll tested language of someone who wants to make modest criticisms without saying that our entire constitutional democratic order is at risk. Gore is saying that the constitution is under attack, and according to this statement from New York Magazine, that the slimist shreds of legitimacy are keeping us from suffering violent revolution.