Subject: Fighting Hard Enough

Hello BC-   While reading Teresa's e-mail to you about Al Gore, a thought came to me.
I agree with you that Al Gore didn't fight hard enough, and I agree with Marc Perkel that
Gore's campaign strategy of running away from Clinton was asinine.

For Gore to adopt such an obviously flawed "strategy" (and for Gore to have apparently
bought into the moralistic witch hunt against his boss, re: his also flawed choice of Joe
Lieberman as running mate), one would have to think that Gore and Clinton must have had
a hueueueuege falling out.  It seems that the Big Dog didn't do too much, nay, didn't do
anything, to help Gore in the post-election struggle of November-December 2000, either.

There was obvious law breaking on the part of the Repugnicans.  The Tom DeLay paid-for
rent-a-riot in Miami comes to mind.  Interference with a Federal Election.  I'm sure there was
a violation or two there.   (Being in Florida at the time, it was obvious that there had to be the
buying of "favors" with local authorities for such things to have been allowed to happen).

Point being, if Clinton was the executive ultimately in charge of the DOJ, he could have charged
Janet Reno with responsibility  for looking into these obvious violations.  And Clinton could have
been VERY public about it, pointing out the facts favoring a fair democratic result in Florida versus
the lying, "win at any and all cost" attitude of the R's.

So it is my feeling that Clinton was pretty fed up with Al Gore, as well as visa versa.

Or he  felt it would be worth his while to sit back (like the Miami officials) and turn a blind eye
to obvious illegal activity, for whatever reason (too much there to speculate upon).  I had always
blamed Janet Reno for such a glaring lapse in enforcement, but your comments to Teresa brought
my thinking on the topic a step further.

Thanks for being bartcop.

RAmes88
 

RAmes,
I certainly have no inside info on Clinton vs Gore, but Clinton got along OK with Newt and Lott,
so I'd have to look at Gore being the problem. One reporter/pundit suggested Tipper was
the problem, since they had daughters roughly Monica's age - Tipper couldn't let it go.

Maybe Tipper convinced Al her reaction was typical among all women and that's why Gore
made the fatal mistake of running away from his greatest success - the Clinton-Gore Team..

Also, remember at Smirk's Nonaugural, Clinton told James Baker, "You guys did great
with that Florida thing, but you never would've had the chance if I was helping him."

From: (withheld)

Subject: Regarding Gore

Bartcop,

I absolutely agree with you that Gore lost the election because he was too busy
RUNNING AWAY FROM SUCCESS like an idiot!  Would the republicans have done that?
Hell no!  They instead propped up that other idiot of a president, Ronnie, and broke their necks
aligning themselves with him.  If that's not ironic, I don't know what is.  Al Gore had a huge jump
in ratings in the polls after the Democratic convention.  Why?  Because he spoke out for the non-rich;
he spoke out for everybody else.  And...what did he do with this?  He went around BACKING AWAY
from what he said at the convention.  By the time he finished, no one knew who the hell he was.

THAT's why he lost the election.  He wouldn't have needed Florida if he had fought.  He could have
won Arkansas, but noooo, he had to leave the only man who could get standing ovations and votes,
Bill Clinton,  out of the picture.  What a goddamn idiot!  I blame him for the mess we are in.
I do not want him to run again.  He still doesn't seem to know who he is and who he represents.
He had his  chance and totally blew it.  I want someone who will at least put up a big fight.
Personally, the only  candidate I am considering right now is John Kerry.
I'm going to be watching to see if he starts speaking out for "the rest of us."

-Maria

From: Arc427@aol.com

Subject: Gore

To: Teese02@aol.com
CC: bartcop@bartcop.com

I agree with you, Teese02

The democratic party let Al down - Torrecelli called for a concession  first.
no real backing no media yelling

Who did we send Christopher ?
It should have been Carter, or Albright or Clinton for gods sake.

Just how much of a democrat are you BC?
I support everything carville has ever said - but your way out there some time

Proceed to slam as you always see fit
 

Wait a minute - I "always see fit to slam?"

Please point out an e-mail that I slammed where I wasn't attacked first.
Maybe it's because I'm a Democrat, but people think they can take a shot
at me and not have one returned back at them.  Fuck that.

From: the_deans@yahoo.com

Subject:  Re: Teresa and Al Gore

Bart,

Don't pay no mind to Teresa, she knows not what she's speaking of.
Allow me to buttress your comments on the matter.

Remember:

Gore distanced himself from Clinton when Clinton had a SOLID approval
rating in the high 60's - about 68% from what I remember. This was
before the the latest fauxgate (thanks to AmPol for that term) - the
"questionable" pardons. Gore went even so far as to ask Clinton not to
campaign for him in ARKANSAS - as if he had anything to lose there.

Gore repeatedly JOKED about the press slander. I remember watching some
CNN one night and hearing Al joking about how he "invented the
internet". Gore's joking, rather than forcefully refuting, the baseless
allegations fanned the flames of characterizing Gore as a "serial liar".

Gore sided with the insane ditto monkey Miami relatives of Elian -
anyone remember that? 80% of the US wanted the boy returned to his
father and Al Gore, trying to be different from Clinton, sided with the insane family.

Debate number 2. Al Gore: "I agree". 32 times he agreed with Smirk.
Nuff said.

Gore picked Leiberman to appease the religiously insane crowd. For
anyone who still doesn't get it - Leiberman SUCKS.

During the recount, one strategic blunder after another led to the Supreme Court's
flawed decision. First, asking for a partial recount, then, his innept legal team spending
only 10 FREAKING MINUTES on the  Equal Protection argument that was the
cornerstone of Team Smirk's legal argument.

And let's all not kid ourselves. Even though Gore "won" the debates, he
should have DESTROYED the idiot governor from Texas - you know Big Dog
would have. There was moments furing that election year when I actually
thought there was some sort of plot to throw the fight by team Gore -
because their strategy was so flawed. All Gore had to do was look into
the cameras and say that he was Clinton without the sex scandal -
that's what people wanted.

So let's review the reasons why Gore "lost" in the order that I would put them:

1. Gore's centrist strategy and his penchant for not fighting media lies.
2. Supreme Court corruption.
3. A Media that had blatantly abandoned the fairness doctrine
4. Nader.

Gore had his chance. As you said, against the weakest candidate in the
history of American politics - yes, even weaker than Dan Quayle. He didn't
do as well as was expected which resulted in an unusually close election,
thus allowing the Supreme Whores to render their judgement for the Boy King.
This may be the biggest fumble in American Political history.

And now, you have Gore cheerleading (kinda) Smirk on his idiotic
foreign policy - like attacking Iraq for no discernable reason. Believe
me folks, we don't need a fense-sitter like Al Gore who spends most of
his time trying not to offend the right wing. We need a FIGHTER, Damnit!

Keep settin' them straight, Bart!

Regards,
Morgan